run_tests

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

The description does not disclose what happens when tests are run (e.g., output format, exit codes, coverage generation) or whether there are side effects. With no annotations, the agent has minimal insight into the tool's behavior beyond the generic verb.

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?

At one sentence, the description is concise, but it is too sparse to be fully informative. It lacks structure or detail that could aid an agent, though it does not waste words.

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 has 4 parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret results. For a test runner, this is a significant gap, leaving the agent without critical information.

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%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional context about parameter usage or relationships, which is acceptable as the schema suffices, but no extra value is provided.

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 'Runs the project's tests' clearly states the action and resource, but it is too generic. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'build' or 'build_tests', and omits nuances like running specific tests (via 'only' parameter) or configurations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing to build first) or describe scenarios where this tool is appropriate compared to 'build_tests' or 'list_tests'. The agent is left to infer usage from context.

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