testcase_lint_batchBatch analyze multiple test cases to compute aggregate lint scores and identify quality issues.
Birden fazla test case'i toplu analiz eder ve toplu istatistik döner.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| testcases | Yes | ||
| strict_mode | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | ||
| aggregate | Yes | ||
| recommendations | No | ||
| grade_distribution | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as error handling, side effects, or rate limits. It is consistent with annotations but provides no additional transparency beyond them.
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, clear sentence that is appropriately concise for the tool's function. It conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary verbosity, making it easy to parse.
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 an output schema, the description omits crucial context about input parameter formats, the behavior of strict_mode, and the nature of the returned statistics. It also does not mention the batch vs. single-use distinction, leaving the tool's context incomplete for an agent.
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 description only vaguely acknowledges the 'testcases' parameter through the phrase 'multiple test cases' but does not explain the structure of array items or the meaning of 'strict_mode'. Since the schema has no field descriptions, this lack of detail leaves parameter semantics largely unexplained.
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 that the tool analyzes multiple test cases in batch and returns aggregate statistics, which distinguishes it from the singular testcase_lint sibling. The verb 'analyzes' and the object 'multiple test cases' precisely convey the tool's function.
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 batch analysis of multiple test cases, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like testcase_lint. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of clearly directing the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.