generate_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Returns test templates' indicates a read operation, but it does not disclose output details, potential side effects (e.g., file creation), or error behavior. Minimal transparency beyond the verb itself.

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 concise sentence followed by a compact target pattern. It is front-loaded and every word is informative; no filler 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the essential purpose and parameter syntax. However, it does not describe the return format or provide any example output, and with no annotation or output schema, the agent must infer what a 'test template' actually looks like.

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?

The schema provides a single parameter with an example, and the description adds a full enumeration of acceptable target values (viewmodel, repository, ui, api, all). This goes beyond the schema's brief example, adding meaningful format context.

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 returns test templates and enumerates the target taxonomy (viewmodel, repository, ui, api, all). While 'test templates' is a bit generic, it is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like get_prompt_templates or get_project_structure.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The target syntax implies usage (e.g., specifying a viewmodel), but there is no mention of when to prefer generate_tests over other test-related tools (e.g., verify_ui or scaffold_feature).

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