Generate TDD test from user story

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about database insertion and optional PR creation, which matches these annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects beyond what annotations imply.

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: one functional statement and one listing return values. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no unnecessary words.

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 tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the main operation, side effects, and return values. However, it lacks details on when 'needsHumanReview' is set or the effect of different 'automationMode' values beyond the schema enum.

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 explains all parameters. The description does not add new parameter-level information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates a Playwright TypeScript test from a user story ID, inserts a qa_stories row, and optionally opens a draft PR. It also lists the return values, making the purpose specific and actionable. The title and name align well.

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 implies it's for generating TDD tests from user stories but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'test_gen_from_report' or 'improve_qa_story'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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