Build regression pack

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool 'Returns a set of test cases', which is a fair behavioral note. However, it does not elaborate on permissions, rate limits, or other nuances. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences with no waste: purpose, usage guideline, and output. Front-loaded with the core action. 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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is adequately complete. It explains the output as a 'set of test cases', which is sufficient. Could mention idempotency explicitly, but annotations cover it. Slightly vague on output format, but not a major gap.

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?

Both parameters (area, context) are fully described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is correct as the schema handles most of the parameter documentation.

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 'Generate' and the resource 'regression test pack'. It specifies the focus on a feature area or recent change, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'generate_missing_coverage' or 'analyze_pr_risk' which serve different purposes.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'after a refactor, migration, or risky change'. Provides clear context with the example. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or directly compare with siblings, the guidance is strong and sufficient for most agents.

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