Recommend test layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clarifies that the tool analyzes existing git changes and coverage data and returns a recommendation, implying a read-only analysis. However, it does not state side effects, permissions, or how data is sourced.

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?

Single sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the input condition and then states both outputs. Every part of the sentence adds meaning.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It lacks parameter details, expected output shape, and differentiation from sibling tools, making it hard for an agent to invoke correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, and the description only gestures at two conceptual inputs ('git changes' and 'coverage numbers') without mapping them to specific parameters like cwd, base, mode, workspace, or reportPath. It fails to explain the mode enum or the optionality/role of each parameter.

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 action: 'recommend the cheapest test layers and whether Playwright MCP is required,' with clear input context ('current git changes and coverage numbers'). It is distinct from siblings like generate_test_plan or generate_layer_brief, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 gives an implied usage condition (when you have git changes and coverage numbers), but it does not mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. With overlapping siblings, this leaves room for ambiguity.

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