run_test_by_name_or_id

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the automatic name/UUID lookup, but lacks critical details: whether this is a read or write operation (likely a write, as 'run' implies execution), what happens during execution (e.g., starts a test run, may be destructive), permissions needed, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs mutations.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and adds a useful behavioral note. There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the likely complexity of running tests (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on execution behavior, return values, error handling, or dependencies on other tools (e.g., needing a valid profile). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by clarifying that 'testNameOrId' accepts either a name or UUID, with automatic name lookup if not a UUID, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what the schema already states.

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 action ('Run test') and the mechanism ('by name or ID'), specifying that it automatically finds tests by name if not a UUID. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_test' (which retrieves test details) or 'stop_test_run' (which terminates execution), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 like 'get_test_run' or 'wait_for_test_run', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid test name/ID). It only explains the name/ID lookup behavior, leaving usage context implied.

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