createTestInclude

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, meaning the tool is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond this: it writes an empty include and clarifies that runTests executes its contents. This provides insight into the tool's effect and expected usage, complementing the annotation profile without contradiction.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Create the test include of a class'), and the second sentence adds essential behavioral detail about the empty include and the runTests relationship. Every word earns its place, making it exceptionally concise and clear.

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 simple creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior: creating an empty test include and its subsequent use with runTests. It does not mention prerequisites like the class existing or locking, but those are implied or covered by the schema parameters. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could be more explicit about side effects or error conditions.

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?

All parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add any parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides clear explanations for 'clas', 'transport', and 'lockHandle'. Since the schema fully covers parameter semantics, the description does not need to repeat them, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Create the test include of a class'. It clearly differentiates this from a generic include by specifying 'test include' and explains why it is needed ('which a new class does not have'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like createInclude, relying on the 'test' qualifier rather than naming alternatives. Thus, it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 when to use the tool: to create a test include for a class that lacks one. It also mentions 'runTests' as the follow-up action, giving context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives such as createInclude for other include types. The usage context is implied but not formally contrasted with other tools.

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