create_gherkin_scenarios

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output includes various scenario types and a step definitions checklist, which is helpful. However, it does not mention behavioral traits like whether the tool is read-only, any prerequisites for input quality, or output format constraints, leaving some uncertainty.

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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately states the core function, followed by a comma-separated list of inclusions. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous words. Every part adds 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description provides a fairly complete picture: it specifies input (acceptance criteria) and output content (scenario types, outlines, checklist). Minor details like output format (plain text vs. JSON) or error handling are missing, but the description covers essential usage information for a generative tool.

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% with basic but adequate descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., it does not explain how 'context' influences generation). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers the parameters, and the description does not enhance their semantics.

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 creates BDD scenarios in Gherkin from acceptance criteria, listing specific output types (happy path, negatives, edge cases, Scenario Outline with tables, step definitions checklist). This verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like analyze_user_story or generate_test_strategy.

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 you have acceptance criteria and need BDD scenarios. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives (e.g., when to use design_contract_tests instead). The context is clear but lacks exclusionary or comparative advice.

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