robot_create_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the result is a reviewable draft, which suggests no immediate execution, but it does not mention file creation, overwrite behavior, side effects, or input expectations. For a creation tool this is a substantial gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It is appropriately short, though 'nearby resources, libraries, and reusable keywords' is somewhat vague and could be replaced with more precise behavioral content without hurting 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?

Given that this is a creation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly. It conveys the high-level purpose but omits essential information about required inputs, output behavior, and overwrite semantics. The presence of an output schema helps but does not make up for the missing parameter and behavior guidance.

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 any of the six parameters. 'Nearby resources, libraries, and reusable keywords' hints at context but does not clarify the meaning or relationship of request, target_path, workspace, tags, test_name, or overwrite. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 states a specific action ('Create') and resource ('reviewable Robot draft'), and the modifier 'reviewable' plus 'draft' distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like robot_run and robot_dry_run. It stops short of explicitly naming the output artifact (e.g., a Robot file) or target path, so it is clear but not fully precise.

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 is given on when to use this tool instead of robot_run, robot_dry_run, or robot_list_tests. The 'reviewable draft' phrasing implies it is for authoring rather than executing, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are provided.

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