spring_generate_mockmvc_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify whether the tool overwrites existing files, what exactly is generated (e.g., file types, location), or if it requires a valid Spring project. The term 'starter skeletons' is vague and does not clarify side effects or constraints.

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 unnecessary words. It efficiently states the tool's core function, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose. No wasted space.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and many related siblings (e.g., 'generate_mockmvc_test'), the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'starter' entails, how results are presented, or differentiate from similar tools. The agent lacks enough context to use it correctly without additional clarification.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—e.g., it does not explain how 'controller' filters detected controllers or how 'path' is used. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents parameters well.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Generate starter MockMvc test skeletons') and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_mockmvc_test' (singular) and other analysis tools. It explicitly states the tool targets 'detected Spring controllers', making its purpose unmistakable.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool over its sibling 'generate_mockmvc_test' or under what circumstances it is appropriate. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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