unitTestRun

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Runs unit tests.' It fails to disclose any side effects, permissions required, or what happens to existing test results, offering no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the bare minimum.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded, but it is too minimal to convey necessary information. While it earns its place, it could benefit from additional context without becoming overly verbose, making it adequate but not exemplary.

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 and no annotations, the description should at least mention what running unit tests entails, such as expected output or behavior. However, it only states the basic action, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's full context and output.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters, so the schema already describes the 'url' as 'The URL of the object to test' and 'flags' as 'Flags for the unit test run.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 'Runs unit tests' clearly states the verb 'runs' and resource 'unit tests', providing a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'unitTestEvaluation' or 'unitTestOccurrenceMarkers', which could lead to confusion about when to use this tool specifically.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify prerequisites, when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any context about when it is appropriate to run unit tests. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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