get_test_id_remediation_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'deterministic patch/remediation guidance' but does not explain side effects, required permissions, or output format. The agent is left uninformed about return values or state changes.

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 two sentences long, with the first stating the core purpose and the second providing a practical workflow. Every sentence adds value 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It fails to describe the remediation plan's structure or return type, and does not cover all parameter contexts. The workflow reference is helpful but insufficient.

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 does not explain any parameter. While parameter names (sessionId, desiredAction, desiredTestId, matchMode) provide hints, the agent has no formal guidance on valid values or semantics, especially for required parameter desiredAction.

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: building deterministic patch/remediation guidance when a desired testID is missing. It uses a specific verb ('build') and resource ('remediation guidance'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_screen_test_ids and get_elements_by_test_id.

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 a recommended flow (get_screen_test_ids -> get_elements_by_test_id -> this tool -> reload_app -> retry lookup), which gives clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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