Run test (filtered)

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

The description discloses key behaviors: no arbitrary shell, filtered output based on specific patterns, tail-capped at 120 lines with fallback to 80 raw lines. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly.

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 sentence that is comprehensive but somewhat long. It front-loads the core purpose and includes all necessary details, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description fully covers input constraints and output behavior, including matching patterns and fallback logic, making it complete.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 runs test commands from a fixed allowlist, not arbitrary shell commands, and returns filtered failure-relevant output. It distinguishes from sibling tools (index_repo, search_code, read_snippet) which have different purposes.

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 running tests and getting filtered output. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, but the context is clear enough given the tool's specific purpose.

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