troubleshoot_flaky_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool outputs hypotheses ordered by probability and includes code examples, but it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., if it writes to any state), rate limits, or whether it requires authentication. The description is adequate but not exhaustive for a diagnostic tool with no annotations.

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 front-loads the primary action ('Diagnostica') and lists key outputs concisely. Every clause adds distinct information—hypotheses, steps, fixes with code, prevention policy—without redundancy.

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 tool has 4 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description clarifies the output types but omits the return format, pagination behavior, or error scenarios. Given moderate complexity, the description is functional but lacks details about practical usage (e.g., what happens if code is omitted).

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%, but each parameter's schema description is minimal (e.g., 'Código do teste (altamente recomendado para diagnóstico preciso)'). The tool description clarifies how parameters are used collectively (e.g., symptoms used to order hypotheses), adding value beyond the schema. It does not, however, explain the interplay between parameters or optional versus required fields in detail.

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 uses specific verbs ('Diagnostica', 'Retorna') and clearly identifies the resource ('testes instáveis (flaky)'). It lists multiple output types (hipóteses, passos de diagnóstico, correções, política de prevenção), which fully distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_user_story or generate_test_strategy that focus on different test lifecycle stages.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like review_test_code or quality_checklist. It provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., having test logs), contexts where it is inappropriate, or how symptoms should be structured for best results.

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