Test Run Behat

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the run is synchronous and potentially long, whether a headless browser or DDEV/Lando environment is required, whether it fails the call on test failures, or whether anything is mutated on the site.

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 with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification — there is room to add a clause about prerequisites or sibling choice without bloating.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a test-execution tool with zero annotations and three undocumented parameters the description leaves too much unknown — most importantly prerequisites and runtime behavior — for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Three parameters (tags, format, profile) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. The parenthetical command hints that CLI flags exist but gives no mapping to the tags/format/profile arguments, leaving them entirely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('the site's Behat features') and even names the underlying command, which distinguishes it from test_run_phpunit and test_run_nightwatch. It stops just short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to choose Behat over phpunit/kernel/nightwatch, nor any precondition (e.g. site must be installed, browser driver required). The agent must infer usage purely from the word 'Behat'.

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