generate_gherkin

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that files are generated (feature file, step definitions) and that steps are wired to Java code. However, it doesn't mention whether files are overwritten, where they are saved, or any permissions needed.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: purpose, framework explanation, and usage guidance. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key information.

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 and presence of sibling generate tools, the description is largely complete. It covers output type, framework options, and basic parameter behavior. Missing details like file location or naming convention, but acceptable for a generation 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 description coverage is 50%. The description adds meaningful context for 'framework' (explaining the two flavors) and notes that 'feature_name' can be auto-inferred. For 'package_name' and 'scenario_name', no additional semantics beyond defaults are provided.

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 Cucumber Gherkin .feature file and Java step definitions class from a recorded browser session. It distinguishes from sibling generate tools by specifying the output type and framework options.

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 explains when to use 'raw' vs 'selenium_boot' framework, advising to use 'selenium_boot' in a Selenium Boot project. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use the tool, but the context of recorded sessions is implied.

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