create_tests

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

Annotations already convey idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is known. The description does not add behavioral details beyond what the annotations provide, nor does it contradict them. The word 'basic' hints at limited scope, but no side effects are disclosed.

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 is direct and front-loaded with the action and object. Every word is useful, and it is highly efficient.

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 annotations and an output schema present, the description is minimally sufficient for basic selection. However, it lacks details about what 'basic pytest tests' entails (e.g., file locations, dependencies) and any side effects. This is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 clarify the parameters. While names like workspace_path and package_name are plausible, their exact meaning (e.g., workspace root vs package directory) is ambiguous. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create basic pytest tests' clearly identifies the action and object. The qualifier 'for an existing ROS 2 package' distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_package or create_node, making the purpose unique.

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 implies a clear use case: adding tests to an existing package. It provides context but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases (e.g., 'use run_tests to execute tests'). This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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