createTestInclude

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'creates', implying a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error handling, or what the output looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse, though it lacks depth due to its brevity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'test include' is, how it behaves, or what results to expect, leaving too many gaps for effective agent use despite the concise structure.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a class context, which is already covered by the 'clas' parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 the action ('creates') and target ('test include for a class'), which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what a 'test include' is or how it differs from similar tools like 'createObject' or 'classIncludes', leaving room for ambiguity about its exact function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'createObject' or 'classIncludes'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, dependencies, or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate, offering no help in tool selection.

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