flow.generate_test_scenarios

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 says 'generate' and 'from static source-flow analysis,' which hints at a read-only analysis, but it does not state whether the tool has side effects, requires prior code analysis, returns a formatted list, or interacts with external systems. This is a significant gap for a tool that produces candidate scenarios.

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, tight sentence with no redundant words. The core action is front-loaded ('Generate candidate mobile E2E scenarios') and the rest adds necessary context about the source and consumer. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has five optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides no information about parameter semantics, return format, prerequisites, or how the generated scenarios are delivered. For a tool an agent must invoke correctly, this is severely under-specified and leaves critical operational details to guesswork.

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 0% — none of the five parameters (goal, maxFiles, includeTests, maxScenarios, includeNegativeCases) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not mention any of these parameters or their meaning, so an agent cannot determine what values to pass. With zero coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not.

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'), a specific resource ('candidate mobile E2E scenarios'), and a distinctive source ('static source-flow analysis'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like flow.analyze_from_code and security.generate_test_plan by naming exactly what is produced and for whom. The phrase 'for an AI agent to execute/refine' further clarifies the output's role.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not reference any sibling tool or exclusion criteria (e.g., 'use this when you have completed flow analysis' or 'for security-focused plans, use security.generate_test_plan'). The phrase 'from static source-flow analysis' implies a precondition but provides no decision rule for choosing this tool.

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