test_scaffold_behatScaffold Behat feature files for Drupal modules by providing a module and feature name, with optional scenarios, to start behavior tests quickly.
Scaffold a Behat feature file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | Yes | ||
| scenarios | No | ||
| feature_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Scaffold' implies file creation, but there is no disclosure of overwrite behavior, target directory, permissions, or other side effects important for a write operation.
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 one-line description is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no schema documentation. It lacks any structural cues about required inputs or optional scenarios.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits input semantics and behavioral details, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.
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 mentions none of the three parameters (module, feature_name, scenarios). It provides no semantics for what module or feature_name should contain, so the agent cannot infer expected values.
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?
States a specific verb (Scaffold) and resource (Behat feature file), making the output artifact clear. It implicitly distinguishes from test_scaffold_phpunit and test_scaffold_nightwatch via 'Behat', but does not explicitly reference siblings or usage scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus test_run_behat or the other scaffold tools. The description gives no prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.