unitTestRun

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Runs unit tests' implies an execution action but reveals nothing about side effects (e.g., does it modify data, require authentication, have rate limits, or produce logs?), output format, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs operations with potential system impact.

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 extremely concise at two words, with no wasted verbiage. However, this brevity comes at the cost of under-specification—it's too terse to be helpful, lacking necessary details. It's front-loaded but insufficiently informative.

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 complexity of running unit tests (likely involving execution, output, and potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address what the tool returns, how it behaves, or any contextual nuances, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('url' and 'flags'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 'Runs unit tests' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'unitTestRun'. It specifies the verb 'runs' and the resource 'unit tests', but lacks any detail about what kind of unit tests, in what context, or what the scope is. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'runClass', leaving the purpose vague beyond the obvious.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and it doesn't reference sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'runClass' that might be related. This leaves the agent with no usage context beyond the tool name.

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