generate_eval_suiteGenerate a deterministic evaluation suite by binding test cases to a migration plan, enabling validation of code changes before production deployment.
Bind a deterministic evaluation corpus to a migration manifest.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | migration-evaluation | |
| cases | Yes | ||
| migration_plan | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only characterizes the corpus as 'deterministic,' but does not state whether this mutates state, writes files, validates inputs, or is idempotent.
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 single sentence is efficient and contains no filler, which is good for front-loading. However, it is under-specified to the point that conciseness comes at the expense of usefulness.
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?
Although an output schema exists, the tool has nested, loosely constrained objects (cases and migration_plan are additionalProperties objects), no annotations, and no usage context. The description is far too thin for an agent to invoke the tool correctly or understand what the resulting evaluation suite contains.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but it only alludes to 'evaluation corpus' for cases and 'migration manifest' for migration_plan. It adds no detail about the contents of cases, the structure of migration_plan, the optional name parameter, or how parameters interrelate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Bind') and two concrete resources ('deterministic evaluation corpus', 'migration manifest'), which makes the core operation clear and distinguishes it from siblings like run_migration_eval or generate_migration_plan. However, 'bind' is somewhat opaque jargon and alternatives are not named.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus related tools such as run_migration_eval, compare_outputs, or generate_migration_plan. There are no preconditions, no exclusions, and no workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.