Run Implementation Tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It says the tool 'executes the test command in the implementation directory' and 'returns results,' but it does not detail the output format, potential side effects of running arbitrary commands, or any assumptions about the environment.

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, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds information, and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 is simple (2 optional parameters, no output schema), and the description covers the essential action and location. However, it lacks details about how results are returned (format, exit codes) and does not mention the default test command, which is only in the schema. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a brief context about filtering by spec ('Optionally filter to tests for a specific spec') but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or behavior beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: 'Run the test suite for the reimplementation.' It specifies the action (run) and resource (test suite), and uses 'implementation directory' to set context, distinguishing it from sibling verification tools like cleanroom_verify_run.

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 description implies usage for testing the reimplementation but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools like cleanroom_verify_run are not mentioned, and there are no exclusion criteria or prerequisites.

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