run_until_pass

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions applying 'automatic fixes' but does not explain what these entail (e.g., modifying source files, updating fixtures). It also does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This lack of detail could lead to unexpected behavior.

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 of 17 words, packing key information (repeated runs, auto fixes, termination conditions) without any redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs an automated fix loop. It does not explain what happens on success/failure, what kind of output to expect (e.g., pass/fail status, logs), or error handling. Agent is left with significant unknowns.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('name' and 'max_attempts') have adequate descriptions in the schema. The description adds the context of 'automatic fixes' but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. No additional value over baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: running a test repeatedly with automatic fixes until it passes or max attempts. It uses specific verb 'Run' and resource 'test' with clear failure condition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'read_test' (read-only) and 'update_test' (direct update).

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 implies usage when wanting to automatically fix and retry a failing test, but it does not specify when to avoid using it or offer alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'start_pair_debug' might be more appropriate for debugging interactions. Usage is clear but not comprehensive.

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