Suggest test stub

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'Read-only — it returns the stub, it does not create the file.' This adds value by clarifying the exact behavior (return vs. create). No contradictions or missing behavioral traits.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage, and behavioral clarification. No redundant or irrelevant information. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 simple tool with two required parameters, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It lacks error handling or validation details, but with good annotations, it is fairly complete. A minor gap is the absence of parameter format guidance.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains that the test stub is derived from the ticket's title/description and board code location, giving context for the project and ticket parameters. However, it does not describe parameter formats or valid values, so it only partially compensates.

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 boilerplate test file for a ticket, including path and node:test content, derived from ticket title/description and board code location. It is specific about the resource (test stub) and action (generate), and the label 'Agent-native fixtest' helps distinguish it from other test-related tools.

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 explicitly advises calling the tool 'when creating or starting a ticket' and then writing the returned file, providing clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with sibling tools like generate_test, which could cause ambiguity.

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