Scaffold test from API

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description fully complements this by detailing the tool's output (valid YAML, suggested path, import alias, apiCard) and the recommended workflow (write, minimal edits, validate). It goes beyond the annotation by explaining what the tool returns and how the agent should proceed, with no contradiction. The description even warns against common pitfalls, enhancing transparency.

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 concise yet information-dense, using three sentences to convey purpose, output, and procedural constraints. It front-loads the critical 'REQUIRED first step' and delivers all necessary guidance without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it an efficient and structured definition.

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 that no output schema is provided, the description adequately explains the return values (test YAML, suggested path, import alias, apiCard). It also covers the workflow steps and prohibitions, providing everything an agent needs to correctly invoke and act on the tool. No critical information is missing for a read-only scaffolding 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all 5 parameters, each with a description (workspaceRoot, apiPath, alias, outPath, strategy). The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters themselves—it only mentions 'import alias' as part of the output, not the alias parameter. Since the schema already documents them fully, a baseline 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's purpose: to scaffold a new Multimeter test from an existing API .mmt. It specifies the verb (scaffold), the resource (test from API), and explicitly labels itself as the 'REQUIRED first step', distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate or run. It also lists what it returns, making its role unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'REQUIRED first step when generating a new Multimeter test from an existing API .mmt'. It also provides prohibitions ('Do not invent a blank test from scratch', 'Do not use testlight, npx, npm, shell, or node dist/mcp/server.js') and directs the agent to 'then validate', implying the correct sequence with the validate sibling. This is precise and actionable.

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