generate_test_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool outputs a command rather than executing it, which is useful. However, it does not explain behavior around edge cases (e.g., no changed files, unsupported runner), return format, or any side effects. The description is minimally transparent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It immediately states what the tool does and the key conditions (test runners, changed files). This is an example of effective conciseness.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description is functional but incomplete. It does not specify the output format (e.g., raw string versus JSON) and there is no output schema. It also lacks integration context with sibling tools. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but behavioral and output expectations are underexplained.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond rephrasing the purpose, so it does not exceed the baseline score of 3.

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 purpose: it outputs the optimal test execution command for Jest, Vitest, or Playwright based on changed files. It names specific test runners and the input basis, distinguishing it from sibling tools that analyze test impact rather than generate commands.

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 implies usage: you provide changed files and get a command. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_affected_tests, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This is adequate but lacks clear guidance on tool selection.

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