run_full_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says tests are run and a report is generated but discloses nothing about duration/cost of an all-tests run, side effects (browser sessions, network traffic against the target URL), auth requirements, or failure handling when one category fails.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the action, the scope (all test categories enumerated), the target, and the outcome (comprehensive report) all land in one pass.

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?

With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic call contract. However, for a potentially long-running aggregate operation with no annotations, it omits what the report contains and how it relates to generate_report, leaving the agent with an incomplete behavioral picture.

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?

There is a single parameter (url) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format, validation, or environment nuance (e.g., localhost vs public URL) beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb (run) and resource (all available tests on a web application) and enumerates exactly which test categories are covered: visual, functional, performance, accessibility, SEO. This implicitly separates it from the single-category siblings, but it never explicitly says it is the aggregate alternative to run_visual_test/run_functional_test/etc., so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. Nothing tells the agent to prefer this over running the individual sibling tools, nor when a narrower single test (e.g., run_visual_test) would be more appropriate, nor whether it is meant to be paired with generate_report or already includes report generation.

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