scaffold_unit_test

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

The description mentions inspecting dummy arguments and registering the test target, but does not disclose side effects like file creation or modifications. With no annotations, the description should clarify whether the tool is read-only or creates new files.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, then additional detail. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, return value explanation is not needed. However, the description omits details about the framework parameter, prerequisites, and side effects. It is adequate but incomplete for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'procedure_name' indirectly but does not mention 'file_path' or the 'framework' parameter. The framework parameter's meaning and default are completely unexplained.

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 ('Generates') and resource ('unit testing templates') with clear scope ('for a specific module procedure'). It differentiates effectively from sibling tools like 'run_tests' and 'scaffold_hpc_grid', which serve different purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions noted. The description simply describes the action without context for appropriate usage.

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