test_bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool parses output and enriches failures, adding behavioral insight beyond simple test execution. It does not mention side effects, environment requirements, or return format, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 concise, with key information (purpose and actions) front-loaded. Every word adds value, and the pointer to find_tests is a useful, compact addition.

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?

Despite having 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not describe the return value, the precise difference between 'discover' and find_tests, or how actions affect behavior. This leaves significant context gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only echoes the action enum.

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 purpose: 'Run tests, parse output, enrich failures with context.' It also enumerates the three actions (run/suggest/discover), and explicitly points to find_tests for test discovery, distinguishing it from that sibling.

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 provides usage context by listing actions and redirecting test discovery to find_tests. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over other test-related siblings like debug_runner or verify_pipeline.

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