run_automation_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without explaining return values, side effects, prerequisites, or how results are reported. This is minimal and leaves significant behavioral unknowns.

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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and clearly states the core functionality.

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 tool has no output schema and minimal annotations, so the description needs to explain invocation and result behavior, which it does not do. While the single parameter is fully documented, the description is too sparse to be considered complete for an agent; it lacks context about what happens after running a test or how it relates to other tools like get_test_results.

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% for the single parameter, and the description's 'by name' aligns with the schema's 'Test name or pattern to run.' However, the description does not add meaningful new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 tool runs a specific automation test by name, using a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('automation test'). It distinguishes from siblings like run_all_automation_tests and run_automation_tests_by_category by emphasizing 'specific' and 'by name.'

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_all_automation_tests or run_automation_tests_by_category. The description implies use when you know the test name, but does not explicitly state this or list exclusions.

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