generateTests

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

While readOnlyHint already indicates a read-only operation, the description adds that the tool returns describe/it content (test scaffold) and explicitly states it does not write files, providing additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, immediately stating the tool's purpose and a key behavioral note, with zero 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 has no output schema and a readOnly annotation, the description sufficiently covers the purpose, output type, and file-writing constraint. It lacks details on error handling or limitations, but these are minor for this simple generation tool.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The top-level description adds the nuance that the tool works on files with exported functions/classes, but this only marginally enhances parameter semantics.

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 generates test scaffolding from exported functions/classes, and explicitly notes it returns content without writing files, distinguishing it from sibling tools like runTests or findRelatedTests.

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 implies usage for generating test content from exported code and states it does not write files, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternative test-related tools (e.g., runTests, findRelatedTests).

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