Suggest Functional Test Mappings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses the key side-effect boundary: 'It only suggests — nothing is associated until you confirm.' This directly tells the agent the tool is non-destructive and does not alter associations, which is critical for a proposal-style tool.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides exactly the necessary usage and safety context. No redundant phrasing or filler exists; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, what makes a test eligible, and the fact that no association happens until confirmation. An output schema exists, so the return shape is covered elsewhere. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so model_id and test_ids already have meaning in the schema. The description reinforces the test_ids semantics ('unmapped tests', 'every currently-unmapped test') but adds little beyond that. The required server_version parameter remains undocumented in both the schema and the description, though coverage is high enough to keep the score at baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Suggest which functional objectives each imported test likely covers.' It clearly scopes the tool to unmapped tests and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling apply tool, associate_functional_test, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: for unmapped tests (imported without an association or added without objective ids). It also names the follow-up tool, associate_functional_test, and clarifies that this tool only proposes mappings—so the agent knows this is not the action for applying them.

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