Add test to package

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

The description adds context beyond the minimal annotations by explaining the tenzir-test framework and the scaffolding workflow. It implies the tool creates test files, but does not explicitly discuss side effects like overwriting existing files or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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-structured with a clear first sentence, bullet points for use cases, and a closing note about the framework. It is concise, front-loaded, and all content is relevant to selecting and using the tool.

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 provides sufficient context for a tool with 7 parameters, covering core workflow and linking to run_test. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens if test_file already exists or what the tool returns, but these are not essential for basic invocation.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters, the description enriches meaning by explaining how input/output pairs define expectations, that fixtures can be embedded Tenzir nodes, and how omitted output can be filled later with run_test. This adds usage context beyond raw parameter descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool adds a test to a package, with specific use cases like creating test cases, defining input/output expectations, and setting up fixtures. It is distinct from siblings like run_test and package_add_operator by focusing on test creation rather than execution or operator packaging.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool and when to use the alternative run_test: it says to use run_test with update=True to generate baselines from actual execution. It also outlines concrete scenarios (test cases, input/output pairs, fixtures) that clarify the tool's role.

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