check

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

Annotations already declare that this is not read-only and is destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that safety profile. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the default command, that output is limited to pass/fail plus summary and first failures, never the full log, and that options starting with '-' are refused. It still does not explain possible test side effects, but the major behavioral contract is present.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and output contract, then explains the only parameter. Every sentence adds necessary information: default command, return shape, subset behavior, and option restriction.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete enough to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the default command, how to run a subset, what is returned, and what input is refused.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does this well: `tests` is optional, accepts pytest node ids or test paths inside the repo, and runs those instead of the whole suite, with an example linking to impact-listed tests. It also clarifies that CLI-style options are refused.

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 states a specific verb and resource: run the repository's test command. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the static-analysis siblings (callers, callees, impact, path) by specifying test execution and pass/fail reporting.

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?

It explains the optional `tests` argument as a way to run a subset instead of the full suite, and gives the concrete use case of passing node ids from `impact`. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare it against all alternatives, but the context is clear.

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