Test (structured)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses output filtering ('Only failures are listed') and compactness, but omits execution traits such as timeouts, required SDK/build state, and possible side effects like build artifacts.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return shape, and each sentence adds distinct value without repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still summarizes them. It covers purpose and output filtering; only execution prerequisites and runtime characteristics are missing for an annotation-free runner.

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%, so the schema already documents cwd, filter, and project. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Run dotnet test') and the exact return shape (pass/fail/skip counts, failure messages), while contrasting it with raw test output. This clearly distinguishes it from generic test runners and sibling tools.

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?

Implies it should be used for .NET test runs and that it is preferable to raw output, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like dotnet_build or npm_test, nor prerequisites such as build state.

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