generate_test_protocol

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool only drafts and doesn't execute, but fails to mention side effects like file creation or whether output_path saves the file. Behavior is partially transparent but lacks detail.

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 tool's purpose, format, and execution context without extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 simple tool with 1 optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core function and boundary. The missing parameter documentation is the only gap, so it's mostly complete.

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?

The sole parameter output_path has 0% schema description coverage and no explanation in the description. The agent cannot infer what this parameter does (e.g., output file path) from the description alone.

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 drafts a functional acceptance protocol in Markdown format, specifying the structure (command → expected status, pass/fail/sign-off). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate_handover_pack by focusing on test protocols.

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 notes execution is manual/on-site and this tool only drafts the protocol, implying it's for planning not execution. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives or state when to use this over other tools.

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