bazel_test

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds that it returns results and failure excerpts, but it omits side effects like test execution triggering builds or modifying test caches. More detail on behavioral implications would improve 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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and result. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic return value (structured results with excerpts) and action (run tests), but it lacks details on parameter roles, expected behavior for timeouts or options, and potential side effects. Given the tool has an output schema and three parameters, more context would improve completeness.

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 has 0% description coverage for its three parameters (targets, options, timeout). The tool description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from names alone. For a critical parameter like 'targets', explicit semantics would be valuable.

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's action: 'Run Bazel tests'. It also specifies the return value: 'structured pass/fail results with failure log excerpts'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bazel_build (build) and bazel_query (query) by focusing specifically on testing.

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 such as bazel_build or bazel_query. It does not mention scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it reference any prerequisites or conditions.

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