Generate Test

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the output structure (arrange/act/assert) and the presence of TODOs for human-only assertions, which gives the agent expectations about what the tool returns. This is valuable context not present in the structured metadata.

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, tightly constructed sentence. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the key behavioral detail (arrange/act/assert and TODOs) without any filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a tool of this simplicity.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the generated scaffold's structure and the TODOs, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It does not cover error handling or edge cases, but for a read-only, idempotent scaffolding tool this is not critical. The information needed to call it correctly (params and purpose) is complete, so a 4 is justified.

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 100%, so each parameter (file, path, exportName) already has a description. The tool description adds little about parameter usage—it does not explain relationships between parameters or provide format examples. It slightly reinforces that exportName is the specific export to test, but that information is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Generate') and identifies a concrete resource ('runnable Vitest scaffold') for a targeted input ('a specific untested export'). It clearly separates from sibling tools like find_untested or test_coverage, but does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast with them, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states the intended context: when you have a specific untested export and want a scaffold. This implies when to use it, but it does not provide explicit negative guidance ('use X instead') or mention any alternatives among the many sibling tools. The phrase 'specific untested export' narrows applicability sufficiently to be useful, but lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause.

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