appium_generate_tests

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, so the non-read-only nature is known; description adds that it drives a real session via MCP tools, implying side effects, and clarifies that actual interactions are delegated to sibling tools. It doesn't fully disclose test execution risks, but with annotations that's acceptable.

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 and action workflow; the second sentence earns its place by preventing misuse of generate_locators. No fluff.

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?

For a complex meta-orchestration tool with no output schema, it names the relevant sibling tools and gives an end-to-end flow. Lacks details on the returned instruction format, but that is likely unnecessary for correct invocation, and the one input is fully specified by the 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter, steps, has a clear schema description. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Generate tests for a mobile app'), then differentiates from generate_locators explicitly and names typical sibling tools for the workflow. An agent can tell what it does and how it relates to adjacent tools.

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?

Gives direct workflow: follow returned instructions, drive session with listed MCP tools, then emit code; also explicitly says when to use generate_locators vs appium_find_element. This is stronger than most – names alternatives and conditions.

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