sc_test

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, file modifications, or required permissions. 'Create and run tests' is ambiguous about whether it creates test files or just executes a test suite, offering no transparency.

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 very short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters, enums, and nested objects. It is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail to earn a higher score.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a complex parameter set, the description is far from complete. It provides no context about expected inputs, outputs, or side effects, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb-resource pair 'Create and run tests' and mentions coverage, which conveys the primary purpose. However, it does not differentiate from siblings beyond the obvious testing context, and the phrase 'Testing framework' is a noun phrase that adds little clarity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sc_build or sc_analyze. No context, exclusions, or alternative suggestions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and short phrase.

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