apidog_run_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, prerequisites like CLI installation, failure modes, or output behavior. The phrase 'via CLI' implies execution but gives no details on what happens during or after the run.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately states the key parameter selection logic. This is appropriately concise.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant gaps. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, whether the CLI needs to be pre-installed, timeout behavior (though timeoutMs exists in the schema), or how to interpret success/failure. The description is minimal but insufficiently complete for a tool with 7 parameters and no structured guidance beyond the schema.

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?

The schema already covers all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between scenarioId (single) and folderId (all scenarios in a folder), which enriches the terse schema descriptions. It doesn't need to repeat schema details.

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's purpose: 'Run Apidog tests via CLI.' It specifies the verb (run), resource (Apidog tests), and method (via CLI). It also distinguishes between running a single scenario vs. all scenarios in a folder, which sets it apart from sibling tools like apidog_export or apidog_list.

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 provides guidance on when to use scenarioId vs. folderId, but it does not compare this tool to alternatives or state when to choose this over other sibling tools. The parameter distinction is useful but not full tool-selection guidance.

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