generate_test

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full disclosure burden. It reveals it only creates tests for public methods, a key behavioral trait, but omits details like file overwrite behavior or output location.

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 purpose, no wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

Despite low complexity, description fails to explain the output mechanism (whether file is written to disk or content returned) or the location of the generated file, which is critical for a generation tool with no output schema.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), and the tool's description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides; baseline score applies.

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?

Clear verb (generate) and specific resource (PHPUnit test file for an existing class); distinguishes from siblings like scaffold_test_suite by specifying it targets a class and its public methods.

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?

Description implies usage for existing PHP classes needing tests, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, which is adequate but not proactive.

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