Generate Test Plan

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral trait 'deterministic' and specifies the input source ('from an audit graph'), which is useful context. However, it does not go beyond that to describe any other behavioral nuances, so the additional value is modest.

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, tightly written sentence. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the key qualifier 'deterministic' without any fluff. 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining return values. The description does not mention what the generated test plan looks like or how the optional itemId parameter affects the result. It also lacks usage context. This is adequate for a simple read-only tool but leaves meaningful gaps.

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%: both parameters (audit and itemId) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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's purpose: generating a deterministic test plan from an audit graph. It names a specific verb, resource, and source, making it easy to understand. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling generate_project_test_plan, which appears to be a related alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_project_test_plan or generate_selected_test. The description only states what the tool does, not the context in which it should be chosen, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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