testpass_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the response includes run_id and was_duplicate for idempotent retries, and mentions seeding checks from the pack. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or failure modes, but key behaviors are well-described.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value (purpose, mechanism, response detail).

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description explains the purpose, idempotency mechanism, and response fields. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise sufficient for a run creation tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context about idempotency related to task_id, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides for the other 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 verb 'Start a TestPass run' and the resource 'against an MCP server'. The sibling tools include edit, report, save, and status operations, making this the unique creation tool, so differentiation is clear.

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 for starting a run and discusses idempotency via task_id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to retry, when to use other tools). No exclusions or when-not guidance is provided.

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