run_unit_tests

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Run website unit/test script' but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, how long it may take, what output is produced, or potential side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words, earning its place. However, the phrasing 'unit/test script' is slightly awkward and could be clearer, so it does not receive full marks.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally viable but lacks contextual details such as what 'unit/test script' specifically refers to, expected exit behavior, or relationship to other validation tools. It meets the bare minimum but leaves gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers 100% (empty properties). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none to describe.

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 the tool runs the website unit/test script, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_lint and run_typecheck by focusing on unit tests, though 'unit/test script' is slightly ambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_all_validation or run_typecheck. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected usage context, or why one might choose this over other validation tools.

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