gen_tester_inputs

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it can append/replace in a file, but omits details about side effects, authorization needs, error handling, and the nature of 'EA inputs'. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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, 25 words, front-loads the core purpose. No redundant information. The conditional behavior is stated compactly. Excellent conciseness.

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, and the description does not clarify the return value (e.g., does it return the generated block or only write to file?). The nature of 'source' is ambiguous, and potential failure modes are not addressed. Given the low parameter count and simplicity, more detail is expected.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain what 'source' represents (e.g., file path, string) or the required format. The 'write_to' parameter is mentioned but not fully defined. The description adds little value beyond 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 it generates a [TesterInputs] block from EA inputs. The verb 'Generate' is specific, and the resource is a configuration block. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'extract_inputs' or 'patch_tester_ini', which could overlap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description only mentions a conditional behavior (if write_to points to tester.ini) but does not explain prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.

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