ember_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the purpose; it does not mention side effects (e.g., starting a server), permissions, or that it relies on Testem. The 20 parameters hint at complexity, but the description adds no behavioral context.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with purpose. However, for a tool with 20 parameters, more detail would be helpful without being wasteful. It earns its place but could be more informative while remaining concise.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 20 parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens after running tests (output, logs, exit codes) or provide workflow context. The complexity demands more than a single sentence.

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%, with all 20 parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Runs your app's test suite' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like ember_build_test (which builds tests) and ember_test_server_start (which starts the test server), though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 ember_build_test or ember_test_server_run. The description lacks context such as prerequisites or the typical workflow.

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