Generate an agent test plan

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already cover the operation's safety profile, so the bar for the description is lower. The description adds that the output is 'practical test cases and success criteria,' but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as output format, determinism, or any side effects beyond what annotations already imply. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core purpose and avoids any filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with a simple, well-documented schema and annotations.

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?

The tool is simple, the schema documents all parameters, and the annotations cover safety, so the description is nearly sufficient on its own. Since there is no output schema, the description helpfully states that the output is test cases and success criteria, though it could go one step further by mentioning the expected return format or how the generated plan is meant to be used.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters (useCase, risk, tools), so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, and maps only loosely to the useCase parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('test cases and success criteria') for an AI-agent use case, so an agent can understand what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools score_agent_run and evaluation_scorecard, but the generation purpose is clearly distinct from scoring.

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 the tool should be used when test cases and success criteria are needed for an agent use case, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over the siblings or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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