ide_test_template

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 does not disclose any side effects or behavioral traits, such as whether the tool returns a template, writes files, or is read-only. 'Starter' gives a vague hint of non-destructiveness but is not explicit.

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 short sentence with no fluff or redundant information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, though it lacks substance. This is acceptable for conciseness, even if clarity suffers.

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?

With zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only specification, yet it fails to clarify what the tool actually returns or how 'adapt' behaves. It is not sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does or how to invoke it correctly, making the context incomplete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). With no parameters to explain, the description is not required to provide additional semantic detail, so the baseline score of 4 applies.

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 what the tool is ('a starter tests/*.rhai bench script') but does not state a clear action (e.g., retrieve, create, list). It leaves the function ambiguous, and the name 'ide_test_template' is almost tautological with the description. No differentiation from sibling tools like ide_test_api or ide_run_tests.

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 no context on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. The phrase 'to adapt' hints at a purpose but does not specify scenarios or exclusions. No explicit guidance is given.

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