Generate Test Stubs

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide no safety info. The description mentions 'generates', implying file creation, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files, or permissions needed. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 efficient sentences: first defines action and source, second adds frameworks and traceability. No wasted words; ideal length.

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 covers core purpose and framework support, but lacks details on output format, when to use relative to siblings like sdd_generate_pbt, and expected behavior when spec files are missing. Given no output schema, more context would be valuable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'traces to a requirement ID', which is not in the schema, but this is marginal. The parameter descriptions in the schema already adequately convey meaning.

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 'Generate test stubs from acceptance criteria in SPECIFICATION.md and TASKS.md.', which provides a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on test stubs and mentioning traceability, making it clear what the tool does.

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 when test stubs are needed, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool vs alternatives like sdd_generate_pbt or sdd_verify_tests. No exclusions or conditions are given.

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