generate_compose_screenshot_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool creates Roborazzi screenshot suites, works emulator-less, and targets light/dark/tablet variants. However, it does not mention whether files are written to the project, whether existing suites are overwritten, or whether any Gradle/build configuration is required.

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?

One front-loaded sentence conveys the verb, target platform, output artifact, testing method, and mode/tablet scope with no filler. Every clause adds information.

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?

For a code-generation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but not complete: it explains what is generated and for which modes, but does not state output location, prerequisites (existing Compose project/Roborazzi setup), or behavior for the 'large-font' test mode.

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 schema already documents screenName and composableName, and the description adds context for testModes by naming Light/Dark and tablet variants. It does not go beyond that, and it omits the 'large-font' enum value, so it adds modest value but leaves coverage at a middle level.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Generates' and clearly identifies the resource: Roborazzi screenshot test suites for Jetpack Compose screens. It adds the precise goal ('emulator-less visual regression testing') and scope (Light/Dark modes and tablet sizes), which distinguishes it from generic test-generation sibling tools.

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 phrase 'for emulator-less visual regression testing' gives clear context for when this tool should be selected, and the Roborazzi/Compose details make it distinct from the generic generate_and_run_tests sibling. It does not explicitly list exclusions or say 'use X instead', so it stops short of a 5.

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