generate_test_plan

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 describes the process steps (fetch, parse, extract, emit) and the return structure. However, it does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or rate limits. The 'one-shot' label hints at no side effects but lacks explicit safety guarantees.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('One-shot: fetch + parse + extract') then covers usage and return values efficiently. Every sentence contributes valuable information.

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 low schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides process steps, return fields, and ties to another tool (mk-qa-master). It explains the workflow for an AI agent. However, it omits description of spec_id and does not address error scenarios or constraints, leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It explains target_runner as 'hint the desired output (pytest / jest / cypress / go / maestro)', adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not describe spec_id at all, leaving ambiguity about its format or constraints.

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: fetching, parsing, and extracting for a spec to emit a markdown test plan. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a one-shot combined operation, unlike separate tools like fetch_spec, parse_spec, or extract_scenarios.

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 explains the usage context: it is a one-shot operation for generating a test plan ready for mk-qa-master.generate_test, and the AI client loops over scenarios. It implicitly contrasts with sibling tools but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the 'one-shot' keyword and mention of other tools in the workflow provide guidance.

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