coeus_generate_tests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only states that tests are generated. It does not disclose side effects such as possible test execution (suggested by the execute_tests parameter), model usage, return behavior, or prerequisites.

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 wasted words. It could arguably say more about the tool's process, but what it does say earns its place.

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?

For a tool with eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain key behavioral parameters like execute_tests, output_format, or test_framework, nor does it set expectations for what the agent will receive after invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters by name. The description adds only the notion of 'supplied source,' which maps to the required 'code' parameter, but provides no further semantic value beyond what the schema already gives.

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 action ('Generate') and the resource ('test files or test code' for 'supplied source'), so an agent can understand the core function. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like coeus_test_strategy or coeus_review_bundle, which may equally deal with tests.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or conditions are provided. 'For supplied source' weakly implies a context, but it is not enough to help an agent choose between this and test-related sibling tools.

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