Run .mmt file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses the return contract (pass/fail output, logs, errors) and the exclusivity constraint, but is silent on side effects, permissions, or execution environment. It does not contradict any annotations, since none exist.

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?

Three purposeful sentences, front-loaded with the action and output, followed by usage rules and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Strong for routing and purpose, but incomplete for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema: env and inputs semantics are missing, and the exact output shape is described only generically. Still, the common case of calling with just file is well supported.

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 documents file, quiet, and workspaceRoot (roughly 60% coverage), but the description adds little beyond clarifying that file can be a test or API file. The env and inputs parameters are completely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving a significant gap for an agent trying to use them.

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?

States a specific action ('Execute'), a specific resource (.mmt files), and the result (structured pass/fail output, logs, and errors). It also distinguishes itself as the 'ONLY supported way' to run .mmt files, preventing confusion with sibling tools like format or validate.

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 to call this tool directly when the user asks to run or execute, and provides an explicit exclusion list: testlight CLI, npx, npm install, shell scripts, and node dist/mcp/server.js. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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