run_class_test

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

With no annotations, the description accurately describes the return format (success/error dict). However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., test execution side effects), permission requirements, or other behavioral traits beyond the interface.

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 well-structured with Args/Returns sections, but it is slightly verbose for a simple one-parameter tool. Still efficiently communicates purpose and output.

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 single parameter and the presence of an output schema in the description, the tool definition is fairly complete. It explains input and output clearly, though lacks error handling details and contextual cues for complex usage.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the description repeats the same information from the schema ('The class name to run tests for'), adding no extra semantic value.

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 'Run tests' and the resource 'for a class'. It is specific and distinguishable from the sibling 'run_package_test' by the class scope, though not explicitly differentiating them.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_package_test'. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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