run_relevant_tests

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only restates the tool's basic action and mentions the {tests} placeholder, but does not disclose execution side effects, failure behavior, the fallback_to_full behavior, or how results are returned.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action. No words are wasted, though more targeted behavioral context could have been added without making it verbose.

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 there are no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not mention the default command, empty-list fallback behavior, return format, or how this tool relates to the broader test-related workflow.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that {tests} is used in the command for precise selection, but it does not meaningfully deepen understanding of cwd, timeout, or fallback_to_full.

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 tests for a provided list, establishing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like run_tests or get_relevant_tests, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus run_tests, get_relevant_tests, or other sibling tools. The instruction to use {tests} for precise selection is a mechanical detail, not context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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