run_e2e_tests

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

No annotations are provided, and the description offers little behavioral detail beyond the obvious execution of tests. It mentions 'Supports retries and custom test paths,' which paraphrases schema parameters rather than revealing side effects, failure behavior, or output.

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 two sentences and gets to the point quickly. The first sentence identifies the core function; the second adds policy context and feature support, but is not verbose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description should explain what happens after running tests, such as exit codes or failure effects. It only states the tests must pass, leaving uncertainty about output and behavior.

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's mention of retries and custom test paths adds no new semantic meaning since the schema already documents retries and test_path.

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 'Runs E2E tests with Playwright,' using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from siblings like generate_test_template or get_test_results by focusing on execution rather than creation or retrieval.

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 phrase 'Tests MUST pass before merge' provides clear context for when this tool should be used—before merging changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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