pet_test_programs

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 states the tool runs directories as tests but does not disclose whether it is read-only, modifies state, requires specific permissions, or reports results in a particular way.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is necessary, with no wasted content.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), and the description covers the core functionality. However, it omits what the return value or output is, which would be valuable for an agent to understand the result of running tests.

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 provides only a 'directory' parameter with a default, but the description explains that it iterates over subdirectories each containing 'program' and 'expect.txt', adding significant meaning 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 every example-program directory (program + expect.txt) as a test. The verb 'run' and the specific resource 'example-program directory' make the purpose explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like pet_test_run which likely operates on a single test.

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 batch testing of example programs, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pet_test_run, nor does it mention preconditions or exclusions.

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