generateUnitTest

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

Reveals 'generate or append' behavior and mentions specific conventions, but lacks details on side effects (file modification), permissions needed, or error conditions. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with key information. Efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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?

Missing critical context: no output schema, no annotation fallback, and only 20% parameter coverage. Does not explain return values, when to set confirmed, or how jiraKey affects behavior. Incomplete for a 5-parameter tool.

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 only 20% (workspace described). The description does not explain any parameters (jiraKey, confirmed, sourceFile, methodName) beyond what the schema provides. Parameter semantics are largely undocumented.

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?

Clearly states the action (generate or append) and the resource (pltst unit test block for a testable method). Distinguishes from siblings like checkUnitTestability and runUnitTest by focusing on generation.

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?

Implied usage through reference to pltst conventions, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like annotateIgnoreUnitTest or runUnitTest. No when-not-to-use guidance.

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