unitTestRun

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Runs unit tests' gives no information about side effects, return values, session requirements, or whether tests are executed synchronously. This is a complete lack of behavioral transparency.

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 (four words) and front-loads the core action. There is no redundant or unnecessary content, making it efficient, though it lacks the substance needed for full clarity.

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 that there are only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description should explain what happens when the tool is invoked—whether results are returned, how they are structured, or any side effects. The minimal text fails to provide this operational context, leaving a significant gap for a tool that might be used to trigger tests.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, which is the baseline for a score of 3. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it simply restates the tool's purpose. The schema parameter descriptions are adequate but not enriched by the description.

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 unit tests.' clearly states the action (runs) and the resource (unit tests). It is specific enough to understand the core purpose, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'unitTestOccurrenceMarkers', earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or relationship to other tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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