Generate a test from a prompt

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

The description confirms the read-only nature (aligned with annotations) and states the output format (path + content). Beyond annotations, it adds that the tool returns a complete file for the user to write, but doesn't discuss side effects or edge cases.

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?

Two concise sentences cover purpose, output, and optional import. No redundant words; every sentence adds value.

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 annotations and schema, the description provides sufficient context for the tool's core function and output. It could mention that the file path is relative to test/ but otherwise complete for a read-only 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 coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params have schema descriptions). The description adds useful context for prompt (plain-English behaviours) and module (optional import), but does not clarify the project parameter, which has no description in schema either.

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 tool generates a full node:test file with multiple test blocks, not a single stub. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like suggest_test_stub by emphasizing completeness and the 'not just the single boilerplate stub' clause.

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 mentions using a prompt and/or ticket as input, and notes the output is read-only for the user to write. It hints at alternatives by contrasting with 'boilerplate stub', but does not explicitly name suggest_test_stub or provide when-not usage.

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