run_approved_tests

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

No annotations provided, yet the description fully discloses behavior: creates Fix Script records, attempts execution via SN API, fallback to MANUAL_REQUIRED, returns PASS/FAIL/MANUAL_REQUIRED/ERROR, and detailed report with score%, verdict, remediation. After-execution actions are clearly outlined.

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?

Well-structured with sections, bullet points, and bolded phases. Every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff. Efficiently communicates execution method, results format, and post-execution actions in a compact format.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers execution, error modes, and post-execution steps completely. Given complexity (4 params, nested objects), it provides all necessary context for an agent to use correctly and interpret results.

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 descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal extra beyond schema: it clarifies that 'plan' is the full plan object from create_test_plan and 'approved' is boolean for running all. Baseline 3 appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Execute the approved test cases on ServiceNow and return a detailed results report.' The verb 'execute' and resource 'approved test cases' are specific. Among many sibling tools, this uniquely handles test execution after approval, differentiating from planning or migration 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?

Explicitly states 'Only call this after the user has reviewed and approved the test plan.' Provides clear post-execution guidance for different outcomes (CRITICAL FAIL, MANUAL_REQUIRED, ALL PASS). Could mention when not to use or alternatives like retry, but overall strong guidance.

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