write_test_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists side effects: creates a file at 'tests/YYYY-MM-DD-{slug}.md', indexes into the vector store, and pushes to git if configured. This gives the agent a clear understanding of non-obvious consequences, which is particularly valuable for a creation 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 well-organized: a one-line summary followed by usage advice, side effects, parameter list, and return info. It front-loads the purpose and uses bullet-like formatting (line breaks) without being overly verbose. Every sentence adds value, making it both concise and informative.

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 tool's complexity (9 params, 4 required, no annotations, no schema param descriptions), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, prerequisites, side effects, parameter details, and return values. It aligns with the sibling context by referencing search_tests, and the return description complements the output schema effectively.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. The 'Args:' section provides a meaningful description for each of the 9 parameters, including examples (e.g., 'Short test case title (e.g. "User login with expired token")') and allowed status values with their default. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 starts with 'Create a test case document, index it immediately, and auto-push to git,' which clearly specifies the verb (create) and resource (test case document). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like write_bugfix_summary by highlighting indexing and auto-push, making its unique behavior explicit.

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 advises to 'Call search_tests() first to check for existing coverage before adding a new test case' and states 'Use after writing or modifying tests to make them discoverable.' This provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly exclude alternative use cases or compare it to other write tools, missing full when-not guidance.

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