Criar template de teste

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that a basic template is generated; it does not disclose whether the tool writes a file, returns content, requires project context, or has side effects, leaving important ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition; every phrase earns its place.

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 having an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description lacks usage guidelines and fails to clarify side effects (file write vs. returned content). With no annotations, this is not complete enough for an agent to safely invoke the 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 100%, and the schema already explains both parameters, their enums, and the default value. The description adds only a reference to 'framework escolhido', which does not meaningfully deepen understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('gera template básico de teste (boilerplate)') and specifies the resource ('para o framework escolhido'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like generate_tests or write_test by focusing on boilerplate 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?

The description implies use when a basic boilerplate test template is needed for a chosen framework, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over generate_tests, write_test, or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions.

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