implement-test-suite

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses it provides workflow instructions and writes tests with proper assertions, etc., but doesn't specify side effects, idempotency, or output format. Some behavioral context but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, no fluff. First sentence is a strong imperative, second provides detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no parameters, description should explain what the agent receives. It mentions 'full workflow instructions' but remains vague about return format. Adequate but leaves questions about actual output.

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?

No parameters (baseline 4). Schema coverage is 100% trivially. Description doesn't need to add parameter info but could mention lack of input; it doesn't, but no points deducted.

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?

States it implements a test suite with specific quality attributes, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'generate-test-plan'. Slight ambiguity as it also says 'get full workflow instructions', but overall verb+resource is clear.

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?

Imperatively tells the agent to call it immediately but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the many sibling tools. No context for prerequisites or exclusions.

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