ember_test_server_run

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses automatic building and use of --path, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., server state changes), error conditions, or required permissions. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose and key behavior without unnecessary words. Every element contributes to understanding.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior. It could mention output format or interaction with other test tools, but given schema richness, it is reasonably complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how parameters like 'filter' or 'module' affect behavior relative to pre-built files.

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 it runs tests using pre-built test files, with automatic building if needed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ember_test and ember_test_server_start by focusing on pre-built files and avoiding recompilation.

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 implies when to use (pre-built files) but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives like ember_test or ember_test_server_start. The agent must infer usage context from the description alone.

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