Run full Bruno validation (endpoints then filters)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses several important traits: Phase 2 is conditional on Phase 1 passing, filters are tested in temporary request copies without modifying source files, baseline comparisons distinguish ignored filters from zero-match results, and infrastructure failures are marked inconclusive. It stops short of covering authentication requirements, external side effects of running the collection, or rate limits.

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 four tightly written sentences with the core concept ('Two-phase validation') front-loaded. Every sentence contributes necessary detail about phases, behavior, and return values, with no filler or repetition.

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 complex, five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: it explains both phases, the conditional execution, the temporary-copy approach, baseline comparison logic, inconclusive handling, and the shape of the consolidated result. It leaves some prerequisites and external side-effect details unspecified, but is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides, which makes the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Two-phase validation' of a Bruno collection, with Phase 1 checking endpoint reachability and Phase 2 testing disabled query filters. It clearly distinguishes this tool's combined scope from siblings like run-collection or run-filter-scenarios, which cover only one phase each.

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 usage through its two-phase explanation and the condition that Phase 2 only runs if Phase 1 passes. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as run-collection or run-filter-scenarios, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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