Generate Selected Test (Deferred)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds important non-obvious behavior: the tool returns a deferred result and performs no test code writing or generation, which prevents the agent from expecting a normal generation effect.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a crucial clarification. There is no redundant or filler content, making it appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 simple one-parameter schema, its 100% description coverage, and the existing output schema, the description supplies the key missing context—that the tool is a deferred stub while generation is disabled. Minor potential gaps (e.g., what triggers re-enablement) are outside the tool's immediate contract.

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%, and the single parameter planItemId is fully documented in the schema as 'Stable plan item id selected for future generation.' The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies for high 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 states a specific outcome ('Return a structured deferred result') and explicitly contrasts it with generation ('does not generate or write test code'), which helps an agent understand the tool despite its generation-suggesting name. However, it does not name any sibling tool or further differentiate from the many generation/planning siblings.

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 clause 'while native generation remains disabled' gives an implied condition for use, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like generate_test_plan or generate_project_test_plan. Usage is left to inference.

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