Analyze Test Placement

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds that findings are 'advisory,' indicating non-authoritative output. It does not disclose more specific behaviors such as how the audit graph is interpreted or edge cases, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the action and outcome.

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?

The tool has a required nested object and no output schema, so the description should explain the structure of the audit graph and what 'advisory placement findings' contain. It does neither, and it fails to differentiate from the sibling analyze_project_test_placement, leaving the tool incomplete for an agent to execute 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds 'audit graph' as a synonym for the audit parameter, but adds no details about the owner parameter or how it affects results. 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 a specific verb ('Analyze'), a target resource ('test placement'), and an input source ('audit graph'), making the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling analyze_project_test_placement, which is likely similar.

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 phrase 'from an audit graph' implies the appropriate context: use when an audit graph is available and placement analysis is needed. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over the similarly named sibling analyze_project_test_placement, nor any exclusions.

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