suggest_tests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the output shape ('prioritized, executable scenario objects with steps') and signals this is an analysis/suggestion tool rather than an execution one, but it does not explicitly state side effects or non-mutating behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, both necessary: the first defines purpose and output, the second provides usage context. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids filler.

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?

For a 1-parameter, no-output-schema suggestion tool, the description covers the key context: what inputs it considers, what it returns, and when to call it relative to scan_codebase. It is slightly light on explicit return-value detail, but the phrase 'prioritized, executable scenario objects with steps' gives enough shape for an agent to use the result.

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?

The schema already documents the sole optional 'route' parameter with 100% coverage, including an example and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Analyze'), a clear resource ('codebase features, existing test coverage, and results from previous runs'), and a concrete deliverable ('concrete test scenarios... Returns prioritized, executable scenario objects with steps'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like scan_codebase and execute_scenario by framing itself as the suggestion step after analysis and before execution.

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 gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Use this after scan_codebase to understand what testing is missing.' It makes the intended context clear, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or directly contrast with alternatives like get_coverage or execute_scenario.

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