generate_test_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must communicate behavioral traits such as side effects, output format, or required permissions. The description only lists content components (e.g., pyramid, CI/CD flow) but does not clarify whether the tool saves output, returns text, or requires authentication. For a generative tool, the behavioral model is left entirely implicit.

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 sentence that front-loads the main action and enumerates the key output components. While efficient, it is a long compound sentence that could benefit from structural improvements (e.g., bullet points or clearer separation of ideas). No wasted words, but room for better readability.

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 complexity of generating a multi-component test strategy, the description provides a list of high-level constituents but lacks details on output format, level of detail, or what the agent can expect. With no output schema, the description should clarify the output's nature (text, structured plan, etc.). It is adequate for a brief overview but not fully complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 100%, with all five parameters having clear descriptions. The tool's description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides—it lists the output components but does not map them to parameters or explain how inputs affect the generated strategy. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 that the tool generates a complete test strategy and lists six specific components (adapted pyramid, tools per layer, CI/CD flow, coverage goals, execution SLA, phased roadmap). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on narrower aspects like contract tests or performance plans. The verb 'Gera' (generates) combined with the resource 'estratégia completa de testes' provides a precise, actionable purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies that it is for generating a comprehensive strategy, there is no guidance on when a user should choose this over more specific tools like 'design_contract_tests' or 'generate_performance_plan'. The context of sibling tools suggests a need for differentiation, but the description does not address it.

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