Assert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it generates test scenarios, can optionally save them to Assert, and defaults to returning a markdown preview. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'ready-to-run' entails (e.g., format specifics, dependencies). This is adequate but leaves gaps for a mutation-capable tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by an optional feature in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying functionality and user choice. It is appropriately sized with zero waste or redundancy.

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 annotations, 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose and key behavior (generation and optional saving), but lacks details on output format (beyond 'markdown preview'), error cases, or integration context. For a tool that creates test scenarios, more guidance on output expectations would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'description' parameter is for plain-English input and 'save' controls persistence, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema 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 the specific action ('Generate a ready-to-run E2E test scenario'), the resource ('in Assert Markdown format'), and the transformation ('from a plain-English description'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like assert_list, assert_run, and assert_status by focusing on test creation rather than listing, executing, or checking status.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to create E2E test scenarios from English descriptions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., use assert_run for execution, assert_list for browsing). The optional save parameter implies a choice between preview and persistence, but no explicit guidance on choosing between this and other tools.

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