generate_test_cases

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the important side effect of auto-saving to both output directory and current workspace. However, it does not mention behavior when scenario_ids is null, whether files are overwritten, or error handling.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a critical behavioral note. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But the description omits parameter details and does not address the context of how scenario_ids relate to scenarios from generate_scenarios, leaving gaps for a single-parameter tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'from scenarios' but does not clarify the meaning of scenario_ids, its format, or that it is optional. The agent lacks sufficient parameter guidance.

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 verb 'generate', the resource 'executable test cases from scenarios', and the dependency on 'ingest_spec' for language and framework. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_scenarios, which produce scenarios rather than tests.

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 that ingest_spec should be called first to set language/framework, but does not explicitly state prerequisites or alternatives like generate_scenarios for creating scenarios. No guidance on when not to use this tool.

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