Run tests

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

Discloses that the tool executes the project's own test command, which carries risk. Explains that the host asks before execution. Annotations set readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent, but the description adds important context about trust and sandboxing that goes beyond annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each adding value. Front-loaded with the core action and parsing behavior. No redundant or filler 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?

Given the tool's complexity (executes commands, parses output, security implications) and absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return value (pass/fail counts) and its intended downstream use, leaving no significant gaps.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description does not add new parameter meaning beyond the schema but integrates parameters into the narrative. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema fully documents parameters.

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 tool runs the test suite and parses pass/fail counts. It distinguishes itself from siblings like score_build_readiness by stating the output should be passed to that tool, and from others like scan_project which are unrelated.

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 says when to use (for reliability evidence) and when not (only approve for trusted projects). Advises on risk acknowledgment and mentions the host asks before running. Directs to pass results to score_build_readiness, providing clear usage context.

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