Test Run Kernel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about permissions, side effects (e.g., database changes, temporary files), runtime environment, or the behavior of the filter and test_path parameters.

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 extremely short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structure or front-loaded detail needed to call the tool correctly.

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?

For a test-runner tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is inadequate. Although an output schema exists, nothing tells the agent how to select, configure, or safely invoke the 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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters (filter and test_path), and the description does not mention either parameter or explain their expected format or effect. The description therefore adds no meaning beyond the schema field names.

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 'Run Kernel tests.' restates the tool name and title without adding scope, test-type detail, or distinguishing it from sibling test runners such as test_run_phpunit, test_run_behat, or test_run_nightwatch. It names a verb and resource, but that resource is already obvious from the name 'test_run_kernel'.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. It does not say when to choose kernel tests over PHPUnit, Behat, or Nightwatch siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites such as a configured Drupal test environment.

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