run-test-suite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions async, write gating (OPENMETADATA_ALLOW_WRITE), and result flow. However, it does not cover potential error states, prerequisites (e.g., pipeline must exist), or rate limits, leaving gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the async result retrieval mechanism and write gate. However, it could mention what happens if the pipeline is not found or if the test suite has no associated pipeline.

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 meaning by explaining the precedence: pipelineFqn/Id directly or testSuiteFqn (resolved to first pipeline). This clarifies parameter semantics beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool triggers execution of a test suite via its ingestion pipeline. It specifies async behavior and result retrieval via polling, distinguishing it from related siblings like get-test-suite or list-test-case-results.

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?

It explains when to use the tool (trigger test suite run) and how results are obtained (poll list-test-case-results or quality-rollup). It also clarifies parameter options (pipelineFqn/Id vs testSuiteFqn). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the polling endpoints.

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