design_integration_tests

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses what the tool produces (test structure, Testcontainers, scenarios) but omits behavioral traits like side effects (e.g., file creation), authorization needs, or persistence of results. The description adds some value beyond the schema but is not 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?

The description is a single, well-structured Portuguese sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists output elements. It is concise and clear, though it could be slightly more organized with bullet points for the return components.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It fails to specify the output format (e.g., text, code block), prerequisites, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'analyze_user_story' or 'review_test_code'.

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 100%, providing baseline 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; parameter descriptions are minimal ('Primeiro componente.'). It does not explain how parameters like integration_type influence the generated output.

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 designs integration tests between two components and specifies the output elements (Testcontainers, setup/teardown, scenarios). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'design_contract_tests' by focusing on integration rather than contract testing.

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 two components need integration testing but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., contract tests, performance plans). No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.

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