run_automation_test

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'headless mode' and provides no details about output, side effects, required setup, or how test results are returned. This leaves significant behavioral uncertainty for an automation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no superfluous words. Every part contributes to the meaning.

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?

With no output schema and only a minimal description, the tool's return values and how to obtain test results are unknown. It also does not mention any prerequisites or side effects. The description leaves too much context unaddressed for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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 only 33% (only projectPath has a description). The description adds 'project-relative' which clarifies testPath, but timeoutMs remains without explanation. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema descriptions for most parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' with a clear resource 'project-relative GDScript test' and qualifier 'in headless mode', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like run_project. It is unambiguous and directly states what the tool does.

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 context is clear: run a GDScript test headlessly. It implies the tool is for automated testing rather than launching the full project, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions are stated, but the intended use case is evident.

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