analyze_test_quality

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior and side effects. It states it returns metrics, but does not explicitly mention that it is read-only or non-mutating. It also lacks details on error handling (e.g., invalid path, no test files). The description gives a basic idea but is not fully transparent about limitations or risks.

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, consisting of two clear sentences. It lists the analysis topics and the output format without any redundant information. The structure is efficient and to the point.

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 description adequately conveys the core purpose and output for a simple analysis tool. However, it omits details such as the format of the grade, whether non-test files are considered, or how max_length influences the analysis. Given the tool's simplicity, it is acceptable but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%: both path and max_length are described in the schema. The description does not add any extra clarification beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema already explains parameters adequately, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance it further.

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 function: analyzing test suite quality with specific aspects like assertion density, test length, naming conventions, and magic numbers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., analyze_complexity, analyze_imports) by focusing specifically on test quality metrics and outputs a score and grade.

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 usage for evaluating test suites, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. However, the name and content make it clear it is for test code analysis, and sibling tools cover other aspects, so the context is sufficient. It could be improved by explicitly stating to use it for test code rather than production code.

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