arno.run_tests

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

The annotations only indicate destructiveHint=false; the description adds that the tool waits for pass/fail and surfaces the first failure, which is meaningful runtime behavior. It does not detail side effects, but the test-running framing plus the non-destructive hint covers the main safety concern.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of filler, covering the core capability and an important alternative in two sentences. The 'Full suite: check kind tests' fragment is terse and slightly cryptic, which prevents a top score.

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?

For a test-runner tool with only optional parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential workflow: rerun, wait, and surface the first failure. It stops short of specifying the exact result payload or how 'changed' is determined, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the schema fully documents all five parameters. The description's scope categories mirror the schema values without adding deeper syntax or format details, so it adds little beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 names a specific resource (tests) and action (rerun) with explicit target scopes: a failing test, a test file, or changed files' tests. It also distinguishes itself from a full-suite path, so the agent can tell it apart from sibling commands.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool — rerunning failing tests or changed scopes — and explicitly points to an alternative for full suites ('Full suite: check kind tests'). It does not exhaustively contrast every sibling, but the main boundary is stated.

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