Start Project Tests

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It discloses a non-obvious side effect (automatic project opening for design repositories, not for local) and states the return type (execution status and metadata). It does not mention whether execution is asynchronous or blocks, but it provides meaningful behavior beyond the annotation.

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 three sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, the repository-specific caveat follows, and the result-retrieval guidance closes it. Every sentence adds information that is not available from the schema alone.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle by saying what is returned and which sibling tools retrieve the actual results. It could be more explicit about whether the call blocks until tests finish or only kicks off execution, but the essential call-and-follow-up flow is clear.

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%, and the property descriptions already explain projectId, tableId, fromModule, testRanges, and response_format. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and object, 'Start project test execution,' which clearly distinguishes this from the many project-management and trace siblings. It further differentiates itself from the result-retrieval tools by name and by noting what happens after execution.

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?

It states the action and covers a key conditional: design repositories auto-open the project, while 'local' runs tests directly. It also tells the agent where to get results afterward via openl_get_test_results_summary, openl_get_test_results, or openl_get_test_results_by_table, though it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool.

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