Gerar ou traduzir testes com LLM

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool translates tests automatically and accepts reference code, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it writes files, requires API keys, or is read-only). This is a significant gap for a tool without annotations.

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 three sentences long and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence provides distinct value: the main function, the reference-handling workflow, and translation examples. No words are wasted.

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 rich schema (100% parameter coverage) and presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the key generation and translation behavior and shows how to use referenceCode with read_file. It lacks a brief note on when to prefer this over write_test or create_test_template, but the core usage is clear.

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 schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly instructing how to populate referenceCode (read with read_file and pass) and clarifies the translation use case, which goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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: 'Gera spec em QUALQUER framework' and 'Traduz automaticamente', with explicit examples (Robot→Playwright, Cypress→WDIO). It distinguishes itself from siblings like write_test by emphasizing framework-agnostic generation and translation.

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?

Provides a concrete usage pattern: 'Aceita referência de outro framework: leia com read_file e passe em referenceCode', which tells the agent to read a file with a sibling tool and pass its content. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to alternatives like write_test or create_test_template.

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