mfg_generate_test_plan

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

With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool produces a markdown checklist and that providing output_path saves the plan to a file, otherwise it returns text. However, it does not mention prerequisites such as needing a valid project design intent, nor does it describe error handling, file overwrite behavior, or any side effects beyond file saving. It provides some useful context but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a bulleted list of coverage items, and concise Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the organization makes it easy to scan. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, not overly verbose.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it produces, and the input/output behavior. It mentions the source ('project design intent') and the output format (markdown). However, it lacks information about failure conditions (e.g., missing design intent) and potential impacts. Overall, it is mostly complete for a generation tool of this scope.

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 only parameter, output_path, is fully explained in the description: it is an optional relative path for saving the plan, with an example ('test_plan.md'), and behavior when omitted (returns as text). Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description effectively compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default behavior. It could add more constraints (e.g., allowed extensions, directory requirements) but is sufficient.

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 function: 'Generate a bring-up test plan from the project design intent.' It specifies the output as a structured markdown checklist and lists the specific content areas (power-on sequence, protocol checks, continuity probes, visual inspection). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mfg_generate_release_manifest by focusing on bring-up testing rather than release manifests.

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 by stating the tool generates a test plan from design intent, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or comparisons to other tools. Since the purpose is clear, usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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