run_automation_tests_by_category

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a long-running operation, whether it blocks, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The description only states the action without behavioral context.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include a brief note on behavior without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks behavioral details like execution time, result reporting, or error handling. It is complete enough for basic selection but not for anticipating outcomes.

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% for the single parameter, and the description adds a concrete example of the pattern format. However, it doesn't explain how the pattern is matched (e.g., wildcard, regex) or what happens if no tests match, so it adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 runs automation tests matching a category pattern, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like run_automation_test (singular) and run_all_automation_tests (all) by implying a filtered subset, though it doesn't explicitly name 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?

The description implies usage for running a subset of tests by category, but does not explicitly state when to use this over run_automation_test or run_all_automation_tests. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the category pattern.

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