gen_tester_inputs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool can modify a tester.ini file in-place, but does not explain how EA inputs are read, error handling, or whether it validates inputs. Some transparency, but gaps remain.

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, no fluff. Information is front-loaded: purpose first, then conditional. Could be improved with bullet points for readability, but it is efficient.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description is minimal. It hints at output format ('[TesterInputs] block') but leaves out input source specifics, output return, and error conditions. Adequate for a simple tool but not complete.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'write_to' with its file-writing behavior. 'source' is implied to be EA inputs via 'from EA inputs', but no further detail. Adds value but not complete.

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 a [TesterInputs] block from EA inputs, with an optional file-writing behavior. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'TesterInputs block' are specific, but it does not differentiate from siblings like 'patch_tester_ini' or 'validate_tester_ini', which could overlap.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include many testing-related tools, but no context is given for selection. The conditional about 'write_to' is the only usage hint, but it is insufficient.

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