run_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention that running tests may execute arbitrary test code, require a built workspace, or produce side effects from the tests themselves.

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 directly states the tool's action and scope. No redundant words or repetition of the tool name.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context about preconditions (e.g., workspace must be built) and the potential impact of executing tests, which would make the description more 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?

The description adds some meaning by mentioning 'workspace or selected packages', which maps to the workspace_path and package_names parameters. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain that omitting package_names runs all tests or clarify the expected format of package_names beyond what the schema shows.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('ROS 2 tests'), and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like build_project or create_tests. It also mentions the scoping options (workspace or selected packages), which aligns with the available parameters.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as build_project or create_tests. The phrase 'for a workspace or selected packages' hints at scope but does not explain prerequisites, when to run tests, or when not to use this tool.

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