pixasso_generate_test_plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds what artifact is produced (a matrix across four viewports plus an overflow script), but says nothing about output format or any return structure.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Every clause (multi-viewport, the specific widths, overflow detection) earns its place.

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 low-complexity read-only generation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It omits prerequisites and the ordering relationship to sibling generation tools, which matters in a suite where generate_genome or discover_intent may need to run first.

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 the schema already documents testUrl, projectName, and testedViewports. The description only restates the viewport defaults already given in the schema, adding no new semantic detail beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Generate) and concrete resource (multi-viewport testing matrix plus overflow detection script), including the exact viewport widths. Clear what it does, but it offers no differentiation from siblings like pixasso_audit_design or pixasso_generate_genome.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among the six sibling pixasso tools. An agent cannot tell from the description whether a genome or intent must exist first, or when to choose this over audit_design.

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