Run Class Test

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety behavior. It adds the core action of executing tests, but it does not disclose potential execution side effects, prerequisites, or how results are returned; the output schema presumably covers return details.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and object and is appropriately sized for a tool with only one required parameter.

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 required parameter, presence of an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could be enhanced with notes on class-name format or a brief contrast with package-level testing, but nothing critical is missing.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, with class_name described as 'The class name to run tests for'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as whether the class name must be fully qualified or whether it can include package paths, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 states a specific action ('Run tests') and a specific resource ('a class'), so it is clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly contrast with run_package_test, but the class-level scope is unambiguous and distinguishes it from package-level testing.

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 intended usage is implied: use this tool when you need to run tests for a particular class. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when to prefer sibling tools like run_package_test or eval.

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