write_test

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the return value (file path) and prerequisite (crawl_data), but does not mention side effects, error conditions, or required permissions. Acceptable but could be more thorough.

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 with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the primary action ('Generate a pytest Playwright test'). Efficiently communicates workflow and return value.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return value. Parameter descriptions are comprehensive. Workflow with sibling tools is clearly explained. Could mention error handling or validation, but overall sufficient for an agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining that output_dir should be the current project directory and that crawl_data comes from crawl_page, complementing the schema.

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 generates a pytest Playwright test from crawl data and an instruction, and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying a workflow order: crawl_page first, then this, then run_test.

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?

Explicitly advises to call crawl_page first and mentions how the output (test_file) is used in run_test. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but the workflow context provides adequate guidance.

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