Run a collection

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description earns its keep by disclosing execution semantics: requests run in order, test scripts execute, realtime requests are skipped, and progress is streamed per request when a progressToken is present. It does not say that the requests themselves may mutate external state, which is the main residual risk for an open-world write-hinted tool.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then the exclusion and the progress behavior. No sentence is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return shape ('pass/fail summary per request') and the skip rule, which is the essential missing structured data. The remaining gap is that none of the five parameters' effects on side effects (e.g., failFast leaving later requests unrun) are spelled out.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by tying the collection/folder pair to the run scope and by explaining the call-level progressToken, which does not appear in the input schema at all. No syntax hints are added for variables or environment, but the schema already covers those.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: runs the HTTP and GraphQL requests of a collection or folder, in order, with test scripts, returning per-request pass/fail. The 'collection or folder' scope implicitly separates it from the single-request siblings (run_request, send_request), though it never names them.

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 'Realtime requests are skipped' caveat and the ordering/test-script behavior imply when this tool is appropriate (whole-collection batches rather than a single call), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of run_request/send_request when…' routing. An agent must infer the boundary from the family of sibling names.

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