run_tests

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is expected to mutate state. The description 'runs tests' implies execution but provides no additional behavioral context such as side effects (modification of project files), resource consumption, or output format. Beyond the annotations, the description adds minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, making it very concise and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly longer to include key context (e.g., test modes) without losing conciseness. The sentence earns its place but could be more informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (4 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is too sparse. It does not mention that it runs in the Unity Editor, requires a test setup, or that logs and failure details are configurable via parameters. The output schema exists but the description doesn't complement it. A more complete description would help agents understand the tool's scope and usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each of the 4 parameters (testMode, testFilter, returnWithLogs, returnOnlyFailures) having a functional description. The tool description repeats no parameter details and adds no extra meaning. According to rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Runs Unity's Test Runner tests' clearly states the verb ('runs') and the resource ('Unity's Test Runner tests'), making the basic function understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'playtest' or 'execute_code', which could also involve running tests. The description lacks specificity about test modes or filters, which are covered only in the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to use it (e.g., for unit tests vs. integration tests), when not to use it, or any prerequisites. Siblings like 'playtest' exist, but the description offers no comparison or selection criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.