run_tests

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

The annotations are all false, giving no indication of side effects. The description does not mention any potential effects (e.g., creating cache files, modifying the environment). No extra behavioral detail is provided.

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, concise sentence that conveys the purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and a clear purpose. The description mentions 'in the project' providing context. An output schema exists, so return values are not required to be described. Minor gap: no explicit statement about the working directory, but it is implied.

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?

The parameter 'target' has a description in the schema, so the schema coverage is high. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (run pytest) and the result (return a summary). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_files or git_log.

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 when to use the tool (when tests need to be run) but does not provide explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. The parameter description gives some context but no comparative guidance.

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