Decide Test MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'executable test code' and the frameworks (Playwright/API), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this creates files on disk (implied by 'output_path' but not stated), what permissions are needed, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a code generation tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place: 'Generate' (action), 'executable test code' (output), '(Playwright or API tests)' (specifics), 'from test cases and steps' (inputs). There's zero waste or 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?

For a code generation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool actually produces (files? code snippets? structured output?), how errors are handled, or any behavioral constraints. The context signals show complexity (6 params, 4 required) that warrants more comprehensive description than provided.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions 'test cases and steps' and 'Playwright or API tests' which align with parameters but don't provide additional semantic context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Generate executable test code (Playwright or API tests) from test cases and steps'. It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('executable test code'), and input sources ('test cases and steps'), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'execute_api_test' or 'run_generated_tests' which focus on execution rather than generation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'parse_decision_table' (for parsing), 'get_api_test_guidance' (for guidance), and 'run_generated_tests' (for execution), there's no indication of when generation is appropriate versus these other operations. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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