suggest_functional_test_mappings

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It plainly states the tool only suggests and makes no associations until confirmed, implying read-only behavior. It lacks details like auth requirements, error conditions, or output structure, but the core behavior is clear.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and quickly adds necessary context about scope and subsequent action.

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?

Given the tool's three parameters and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), the description provides adequate context: purpose, when to use, and relation to a sibling tool. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., model must have functional objectives) but is otherwise sufficient.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'model_id' and 'test_ids', and it fails to describe the 'server_version' parameter which lacks schema description. Baseline 3 reduced due to insufficient compensation.

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 verb 'suggest' and the resource 'which functional objectives each imported test likely covers.' It specifies the scope (unmapped tests) and distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'associate_functional_test' which applies the mappings.

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 explicitly says to use this tool for 'unmapped tests (imported without an association, or added without objective ids)' and directs to use 'associate_functional_test' to apply. It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or list alternatives.

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