Explain a generated test

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false already declaring a safe read operation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing exactly what is exposed: graph evidence anchors, source refs, and weak/candidate evidence status. It also clarifies that internal generation logic is intentionally not exposed, which prevents over-expectation about the response.

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 explanatory purpose comes first, followed by the concrete artifacts exposed and the boundary against internal logic. Every clause contributes useful information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the key contents: evidence anchors, source refs, and weak/candidate evidence usage. For a read-only explanation tool with full parameter schema coverage, this is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some semantic value by tying generated_test_id to the sibling orangepro_generate_tests tool, but it does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb-plus-resource purpose: explaining why a generated test exists by exposing graph evidence anchors, source refs, and weak/candidate evidence usage. It distinguishes this trust-explanation tool from the generation-oriented sibling orangepro_generate_tests by explicitly scoping it to trust artifacts rather than internal generation logic.

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?

Usage is clearly implied: call this after generation when you need to audit or understand the evidence behind a generated test. It usefully sets a boundary against internal generation logic, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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