execute_test_plan

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the asynchronous execution model, the immediate return of an executionId, and the necessity to poll status and retrieve results. This is critical behavioral information that an agent needs to know to avoid blocking or assuming synchronous completion.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence packs the async behavior and follow-up steps without waste. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-parameter asynchronous tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational model: what it starts, how it returns, and the required polling/report steps. It leaves no critical ambiguity for an agent to execute correctly. The mention of non-GUI mode adds practical context without going overboard.

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 only one parameter, planId, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not directly explain the parameter, but its name and the tool's reference to 'test plan' make it self-explanatory as the ID of the plan to run. While the description does not add extra meaning, the parameter's purpose is evident from context. Given the low coverage, a 3 is appropriate – it does not harm, but could be more explicit about where to get planId (e.g., from list_test_plans).

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 ('Start running a test plan'), the resource ('a test plan'), the mode (non-GUI), and the immediate return with an executionId. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the initiation of execution, while get_execution_status and get_execution_report are for monitoring/results, and create_test_plan is for creation.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent on the follow-up workflow: 'Poll get_execution_status to know when it's done, then call get_execution_report to read the results.' This tells when to use this tool (to start) and what to use next. It also states the async nature ('returns immediately... continues in the background'), providing clear context for correct usage.

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