generate_test_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool writes a file to disk, returns the template as output, or if it requires a specific working directory. The side effect of generating a template is implied but not clarified, and the policy sentence adds no behavioral information.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and add a relevant policy. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool actually produces (a template string? a file? a path?). It also does not mention whether it requires a worktree or how it interacts with existing files. For a four-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a significant completeness gap.

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 input schema describes all four parameters with clear descriptions and defaults, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Generates a Playwright E2E test template for a feature.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_e2e_tests or get_test_results, which execute or retrieve tests rather than create templates.

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 policy 'Every feature MUST have tests before merge' gives a clear context for when to use this tool—when a feature is ready to be tested before merge. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling context makes the distinction fairly clear.

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