lupa_run_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns JSON results but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., modifying test data, creating artifacts) or any destructive hints. For a test runner, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value with no redundancy. It is well-structured for quickly informing an agent.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description could provide more context about output format, error handling, or run behavior. For a tool with 5 parameters, it is minimally complete but leaves gaps that might confuse an agent in complex scenarios.

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%, with each parameter already described in the input schema (e.g., 'Filter tests by file name'). The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Run Lupa tests and return structured JSON results' which specifies the verb (run) and resource (Lupa tests). It also adds 'Use this to identify failing tests' which clarifies the tool's main use case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools lupa_init and lupa_list_tests.

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 provides a clear usage directive: 'Use this to identify failing tests.' However, it does not mention when not to use this tool relative to alternatives, nor does it explain prerequisites like requiring a configPath. The guidance is adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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