generate_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states that it generates test files, without disclosing side effects (e.g., file writes/overwrites), prerequisites (e.g., existing module structure), or failure modes. This is insufficient for a tool that likely mutates the filesystem.

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. It efficiently communicates the core action and scope, earning its place without redundant details.

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?

The description is sparse for a generation tool with three parameters and no output schema. It does not explain when targetKey is required, how test files are named, or which test framework versions are targeted. The inclusion of 'modules' in the description but not the enum introduces ambiguity. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is under-specified.

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 descriptions cover all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes the enum values. The mismatch where 'modules' appears in the description but not in the testType enum is a minor semantic gap not addressed in the description.

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 verb ('Generate') and resource ('Vitest test files') and enumerates the target types (modules, entities, workflows, pages, widgets). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate the actual artifacts (e.g., generate_entity, generate_widget) rather than their tests.

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 usage for creating test files but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. With many sibling generate_* tools, a clearer routing statement (e.g., 'use this for test files, not the artifact itself') would improve agent selection.

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