test_plan_generator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool generates a test plan and lists coverage areas, but lacks details about output format, expected length, any limitations, or prerequisites. It is not misleading but could be more transparent.

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, clear and to the point, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, specifying the tool's output and basis.

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 no annotations, the description is quite complete: it explains the tool's purpose, scope, and inputs. Missing details about output format or behavior, but still adequate for a generation tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context about what the plan covers but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 comprehensive EMC/RF test plan, specifying the coverage areas (emissions, immunity, RF performance, safety) and the basis (target markets and product type). This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on specific limits or standards.

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 the tool should be used when a comprehensive test plan is needed, based on product type and markets. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with siblings, but the context of sibling tools suggests this is a high-level plan generator.

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