suggest_functional_test_mappings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool only suggests and does not associate, which discloses its non-destructive nature. However, it lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or behaviors like what happens if a test is already mapped.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey the purpose, context, and workflow. Front-loaded with the core action and no wasted words.

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 complexity and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the input (unmapped tests) and the workflow (review then apply). Minor omission of server_version explanation but overall adequate.

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 coverage is 67% with two of three parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, and the server_version parameter remains undocumented without clarification.

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 suggests which functional objectives each imported test likely covers. It distinguishes itself from the sibling associate_functional_test by clarifying it only proposes mappings, not associates.

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 specifies when to use the tool: for unmapped tests. It explicitly mentions the alternative associate_functional_test for applying the suggestions, but does not formally list when not to use it.

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