Validate host/model-authored test cases and write them as an executable JSON suite plus a portable .test.mjs runner, requiring explicit assertions to verify behavior.
Validate and write an executable JSON suite plus a portable .test.mjs runner from host/model-authored cases. Explicit assertions are required to verify behavior.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | tests/generated.suite.json | |
| suite | Yes | ||
| planPath | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the write/foreign-effect profile is structured. The description usefully adds that content is validated first and that a portable runner is emitted, but it never says whether an existing file at the destination path is overwritten, what happens when validation fails, or whether plaintext '.test.mjs' is written alongside the suite.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and outputs, with the assertion requirement as a closing constraint. Nothing is padded, though the assertion sentence could carry more operational detail at the same length.
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 a very large nested schema, no output schema, and only safety annotations, the description should explain what successful output looks like (paths written, validation errors) and whether repeated calls overwrite prior suites. It covers the what but leaves the caller guessing about failure and overwrite semantics.
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% across all three top-level parameters, and the description compensates for none of them: `path`, `planPath`, and the shape of `suite` are never explained. The mention of 'host/model-authored cases' gestures at `suite` but gives no format or versioning guidance for the two schemaVersion variants the schema allows.
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 specific verbs (validate, write) and specific artifacts (an executable JSON suite plus a portable .test.mjs runner) plus the input source (host/model-authored cases). An agent can tell this is generation, not execution, so it is distinguishable from test_run, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to plan_create, test_run, or heal_apply. The only constraint given is that callers must supply explicit assertions, which is a requirement rather than routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.