vunit_run_tests

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

Annotations are sparse (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the always-written JUnit XML, the pattern default, and the simulator requirement—useful behavioral facts. However, it omits other side effects like filesystem changes or potential long-running execution.

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?

Three sentences with no redundancy: the first states the core action and result, the second explains the default patterns, and the third notes the JUnit XML location and simulator requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 many parameters, the description covers the essential operation, its output, a key artifact, and a prerequisite. The output schema exists, so return-value details are handled. A minor gap is not mentioning the compile prerequisite, but the sibling vunit_compile makes that obvious.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter guidance. It mentions only the test_patterns default and leaves the other eight parameters to the nested schema. This is insufficient given the low coverage signal.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Run VUnit tests', and specifies the outputs: a pass/fail summary and the list of failing tests. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling vunit_get_report by noting the JUnit XML is written for that tool, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides practical context: default test patterns ('*' runs everything), a prerequisite ('Requires a simulator'), and a pointer to vunit_get_report for the report artifact. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the 'for vunit_get_report' hint implies the companion flow.

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