run_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that all example:/test blocks run and that recorded tests are replayed from recordings, which is useful behavioral context, but it says nothing about side effects, whether recordings are written or mutated, or failure semantics beyond `strict` in the schema.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the scope of what runs. It is dense but every clause contributes; the parenthetical backtick jargon ('replays tests answered from their recordings') is slightly opaque but brief.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about the report it returns. 'Answer with the report' gestures at the return but leaves an agent guessing at structure and pass/fail signal for a 3-parameter test runner.

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%, so path/strict/explain are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., what 'strict' or 'explain' change in the report), 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?

States a specific verb (Run) and resource (every `example:` line and `test` block of a program), and ties itself to the `renyi test` behavior. It is distinguishable from format/check siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with 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?

Usage is only implied: you run this to execute tests. The equivalence note ('the same as `renyi test`') hints at behavior but names no alternative or condition for choosing this over `check` or `run`. No when-not guidance.

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