Generate missing coverage

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool submits a job and polls for results up to 2 minutes, which is key behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not cover failure handling or rate limits, but the polling timeout is valuable.

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 that front-load the core purpose and then describe the process and output. Every word adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description informs about the return format (categorized tests with steps and expected results). It also mentions the polling timeout. This is fairly complete for a job-submission tool, though it could mention potential error states or job failure behavior.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add new semantics beyond summarizing the overall functionality. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 it generates test cases for stories/features needing coverage, specifies the job submission and polling process with a 2-minute timeout, and mentions the output format (categorized tests with steps and expected results). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like generate_test_scripts or convert_bug_to_tests.

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 a user story or feature that needs better coverage,' but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'generate_test_scripts' or 'convert_bug_to_tests,' leaving the agent to infer the best context.

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