scaffold_test_suite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing files are overwritten, required dependencies, or side effects. For a file generation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence listing what is generated. It is concise and front-loads the main verb, but it could benefit from better structure (e.g., bullet points) to improve readability.

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 generates multiple files and has no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., file paths), any prerequisites (e.g., existing plugin structure), or how to use the generated files.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not explain how parameters like rootNamespace, pluginSlug, testType, or targetClass affect the generated output; it just lists the files. It adds no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 generates a PHPUnit test suite for a WPZylos plugin and lists the specific files it creates (bootstrap file, base test case, sample unit test, phpunit.xml), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_test which might generate a single test.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_test or other scaffold tools. It lacks context on prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it.

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