Generate Project Test Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description carries less burden. It adds that the tool is project-aware and that the result is already included in analyze_repository, which is useful context, but it does not describe output behavior or internal processing beyond that. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and input. The second sentence adds a key alternative without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (one input, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and usage context. It could be improved by explaining what a 'project-aware plan' contains, but the mention of the artifact and the alternative make it adequately complete for most agents.

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% for the single parameter (projectAudits), so the schema already explains it. The description rephrases the same idea ('from an existing project-audits/v1 artifact') without adding new details like validation rules or expected structure, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('project-aware plan'), and clearly specifies the input ('existing project-audits/v1 artifact'). It also distinguishes from a sibling by noting that analyze_repository already includes this result, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: use this tool when you have an existing project-audits/v1 artifact. The mention that analyze_repository already includes this result implicitly warns against redundant use, though it does not explicitly compare with other siblings like generate_test_plan.

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