run_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's a synchronous operation that waits for completion, returns pass/fail results per command, and has a potential 2-minute runtime. This covers execution behavior, output format, and performance expectations beyond basic function.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core action, output, and performance characteristic without any wasted words. Every sentence adds essential information.

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 moderate complexity (execution with waiting), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the operation, output format, and timing, though it could benefit from mentioning error handling or prerequisites (e.g., test must exist).

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'test_id' documented as optional and specifying default behavior if omitted. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Run a test') and resource ('test'), and indicates it waits for completion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_test' or 'get_test_by_name', which are likely read-only operations versus this execution tool.

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 context by mentioning it 'waits for it to complete' and takes up to 2 minutes, suggesting it's for synchronous test execution. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'add_commands' or 'clear_and_replace_commands', which might be for test setup rather than execution.

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