jade.run_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key wait behavior ('waits for pass/fail and the first failure') and implies a stop-at-first-failure mode. However, it omits the result payload shape, side effects, and how polling works after wait=false beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and accepted scope variants, then cover wait behavior and the alternative tool. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 schema handles the parameters well, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more about results and edge cases. It says tests wait for pass/fail and the first failure, but it does not characterize the returned object, what 'changed' is relative to, or how to poll an async job. Adequate for basic reruns, not fully complete for all invocation modes.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic context by mapping 'changed files' tests' to scope=changed and clarifying that full-suite runs belong to check rather than run_tests. It doesn't add deep formatting details, but the scope interpretation is meaningful enough to merit a 4.

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 concrete verb ('rerun') and resource ('tests'), and enumerates the supported variants: failing test, test file, or changed files' tests. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling jade.check by directing full-suite runs there, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening 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?

It clearly frames the tool for re-running targeted tests and explicitly routes full-suite execution to the 'check' tool. The phrasing 'Full suite: check kind tests' is slightly telegraphic, but it does provide a usable when-not-to-use signal and names the alternative.

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