alethia_propose_tests

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the tool scans for destructive actions, auto-generates an 'EA1 Safety Gate Verification' block, and returns an array of test blocks. This complements the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations with concrete output and scanning behavior. No contradiction exists; the annotations indicate a safe read-only operation and the description confirms it only scans and suggests, not executes.

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: the first states the main action, the second details the return value and key generated block, and the third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, with no irrelevant filler. The structure is clean and 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?

For a tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (an array of plain-English test blocks), and gives a concrete example of the safety gate block format. It could have elaborated on error handling or edge cases, but given the simplicity of the tool, the information provided is sufficient.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'url' is fully documented with value examples (file://, http://localhost). The tool description adds minimal extra parameter meaning; it only explains that the URL is navigated to and scanned, which is implicit in the tool's purpose. Since the schema already provides the necessary details, 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 tool's function: it navigates to a URL, scans for interactive elements, and generates a candidate NLP test suite. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting the output is 'ready to pass to alethia_tell', making it distinct from the tell, compile, and eval tools. The verb 'generate' paired with the resource 'candidate test suite' is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to bootstrap test coverage for a new page or to discover what the safety gate should be watching.' It also indirectly references the alternative tool (alethia_tell) as the downstream consumer of the output. However, it does not include an explicit 'when not to use' statement or direct comparison to alternatives like alethia_compile, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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