run-test-suite

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses async execution, write gating, and result flow, but misses details like idempotency, rate limits, or behavior if pipeline is already running.

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?

Two dense sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then async behavior, result mechanism, input options, and write gate. Each sentence adds necessary information.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: trigger action, async nature, result retrieval, input options, and write gate. Could be enhanced with error handling or retry behavior, but is adequate for a trigger tool.

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% (all params described), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters (e.g., testSuiteFqn resolved to first associated pipeline) and indicating pipelineFqn as the standard path, which the schema descriptions do not cover.

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 explicitly states it triggers execution of a Test Suite via its ingestion pipeline, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-pipeline (creates pipelines) and list-test-case-results (retrieves results). The async nature and result flow are also clearly communicated.

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use (to run a test suite) and how to specify the pipeline via pipelineFqn, pipelineId, or testSuiteFqn. It also directs to list-test-case-results/quality-rollup for results. However, lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

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