Generate Rego test skeleton

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that existing test_* and todo_test_* rules are skipped, that computed value rules get todo_test_ stubs, that opa test reports these as skipped, and how tableStyle changes the generated loop. It also explains AST-driven input-shape inference and the inferredInputShape response field.

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 dense but purposeful. Every sentence adds a distinct behavioral or usage detail, and the core purpose is front-loaded before implementation specifics.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the key return information by naming the inferredInputShape response field and describing what the generated stubs look like. The tool has only two simple parameters, and the description gives enough detail for an agent to call 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds practical value by explaining the benefit of tableStyle (adding multiple input/expected pairs without duplicating assertion code) and by reinforcing that source is policy source. This is a slight but meaningful improvement over the schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Generate a `*_test.rego` skeleton from a policy." It then explains the process (parse AST, find non-test rules, emit one stub per rule), which clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like rego_test that run tests rather than generate them.

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 intended context is clear from the first sentence: use this when you need a test skeleton for a Rego policy. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the generation behavior is distinct enough that no exclusion is necessary.

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