generate_layer_briefCreate an actionable test brief for a chosen layer (unit, integration, component, smoke, or custom YAML) to guide coverage-driven test generation.
Generate a single-layer implementation brief (unit, integration, component, smoke, or a custom YAML layer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | ||
| base | No | ||
| mode | No | ||
| layerId | Yes | Layer id from list_layers | |
| workspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., file writes), required permissions, or output characteristics. The parameters cwd and workspace hint at file-system interaction, but no behavioral details are given.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and enumerating valid layer types. It is concise and well-structured, though slightly too brief to convey all necessary context.
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 tool with 5 parameters, including one enum and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits parameter semantics, usage conditions, and return expectations, so an agent would lack crucial information for correct invocation.
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 only 20% (only layerId has a schema description). The tool description does not explain any parameter beyond the schema's layerId note, so the 4 other parameters (cwd, base, mode, workspace) remain completely undocumented. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 the tool generates a single-layer implementation brief and lists the possible layer types (unit, integration, component, smoke, custom YAML). The verb 'generate' and resource 'single-layer implementation brief' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_test_plan or generate_playwright_brief, so it misses the top score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or scenario-specific advice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.