generate_dx_tests

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does disclose useful behavioral traits: it delegates to a CLI command and can trigger a fresh scan. However, it omits details about return values, side effects beyond writing a YAML file (though implied by outputPath), and any permissions or conditions.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by a note about the CLI delegation and fallback behavior. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a generation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core transformation, compatibility targets, and fallback scan behavior. It lacks explicit mention of the output file location (though the outputPath parameter covers this) and any preconditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions, and the description adds essentially no new parameter semantics—'If no SARIF file is provided, runs a fresh scan first' mirrors the schema's 'If omitted, a fresh scan is run.' Thus the description does not exceed the baseline provided by the schema.

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 the specific verb 'Convert' and clearly identifies the resource: Agentforce scan violations to DX test specifications in YAML. This distinguishes it from sibling tool names like run_tests and validate_dx_tests, which operate on already-generated specs.

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 usage after a scan, mentioning that a fresh scan runs if no SARIF is provided, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like validate_dx_tests or push_to_testing_center. No exclusions or alternative guidance is given.

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