run_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-detection but omits side effects, expected output, exit behavior, or whether the tool modifies workspace state. Running a test command can have meaningful effects, and this description does not address them.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the auto-detection nuance is included economically. Every word 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 having only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin for an agent to fully understand invocation behavior. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., test results, exit code), how the test command is detected, or when to prefer sibling tools. This under-specification is significant for a tool with zero annotations and no output schema.

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 schema already documents cwd, command, and timeout with descriptions. The description adds little beyond restating that the command is auto-detected if not provided, which is already present in the command parameter's schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 operation ('Runs the project's test command') with a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology, and the auto-detection note adds useful specificity. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like run_relevant_tests, but the phrase 'test command' implies the full suite versus a relevant subset.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_relevant_tests, run_lint, or run_typecheck. There is no stated context, prerequisite, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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