Test Run Kernel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses only the invoked command; it says nothing about runtime, DB side effects (Kernel tests typically bootstrap and write to a test database), required permissions, or failure behavior. Has an output schema, which covers returns, but side effects are unaddressed.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is concise but arguably too terse for the information an agent needs.

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?

Output schema removes the need to describe returns, but the description leaves both parameters undocumented and gives no routing guidance relative to the several other test_* siblings. For a test-execution tool with side effects and zero annotations, this is thin.

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 0% for two parameters and the description never mentions them. An agent must guess that 'filter' maps to PHPUnit's --filter and 'test_path' narrows the suite; a single clause would have compensated for the coverage gap.

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 and resource ('Run the site's Kernel-test suite'), and names the underlying runner (vendor/bin/phpunit). It does not distinguish itself from the sibling test_run_phpunit, which is confusing since Kernel tests are themselves PHPUnit tests.

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 guidance on when to choose this over test_run_phpunit, test_run_behat, test_run_nightwatch, or test_list_suites. Nothing states prerequisites (e.g., that a test database is needed) or when this tool should be avoided.

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