generate_test_script

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

The description mentions 'No SF API calls needed — uses knowledge base', which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations provided, more disclosure (e.g., permissions, side effects, robustness) would be expected for full transparency.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a bulleted list for structure. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the output structure but lacks details on output format, edge cases, or clarification of boundaries with similar tools. Adequate but not thorough.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal parameter context beyond the schema, only implying scenario is the core input. For moderate coverage, the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 'Generate an end-to-end test script for a specific HR scenario' and lists what it includes (preconditions, steps, expected results, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like generate_rule_test, which may overlap in purpose.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., generate_rule_test, generate_functional_spec). No context on prerequisites or when not to use it, leaving the agent without decision support.

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