schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Complete documentation' strongly implies a read-only informational call and lists the topics covered, but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or describe the output format or size. For a zero-parameter schema reference, this is an acceptable but not fully transparent description.

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, information-dense sentence with a clear imperative. Every phrase contributes value: schema version, covered topics, and the call-to-action before test creation. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a parameterless documentation tool with no output schema, the description provides the necessary information: what the documentation covers, which version it documents, and when the agent should call it. An agent can correctly decide to invoke this tool before creating tests without needing additional detail.

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 accepts zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's list of documentation contents adds useful context beyond the empty schema, even though parameter-specific explanation is not needed.

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 identifies the tool as documentation for the YATT test format and enumerates its contents: fields, actions, variables, dataset, and usage guide. It distinguishes itself from sibling test_* tools by positioning itself as the format reference to read before authoring tests. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'gets', but 'Complete documentation' effectively communicates the tool's role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Read it before creating tests.' This ties usage to the test-creation workflow and makes the tool's purpose actionable. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but no sibling tool serves the same documentation role, so the guidance is sufficient.

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