Three tools with complete JSON schemas and basic descriptions, but significant gaps in parameter documentation and error handling. Tool names follow verb_noun convention (testgen_generate, testgen_analyze, testgen_validate), which is good. However, descriptions are minimal (34-72 chars, below the 50-200 char LLM-optimized baseline). Most parameters lack descriptions entirely, e.g., 'api_version', 'request_id', 'recursive', 'cost_estimate' have no explanatory text. No output schemas documented. No error recovery guidance. No parameter constraints (enums, ranges, patterns). Security concern: 'provider' parameter exposes LLM provider selection without validation or scope declaration.

• Add 50-150 character descriptions to each tool explaining WHAT it does, WHEN to use it (vs. other tools), and what it returns. E.g., 'Generate unit and integration tests for Go code. Use this after analyze() to create test files. Returns file paths and test counts.'
• Document every parameter with a description explaining its purpose, valid values, and constraints. E.g., 'api_version: API version for request routing (e.g., v1, v2). Defaults to v1 if omitted.'
• Add output schema documentation for each tool. E.g., testgen_generate returns {files: [{path, test_count, coverage}], total_tests, duration_ms}.
• Convert 'provider' parameter to an enum: {type: 'string', enum: ['anthropic', 'openai', 'gemini', 'groq'], description: 'LLM provider for test generation. Requires corresponding API key configured server-side.'}
• Add error recovery guidance. E.g., 'If path not found, verify the directory exists and is readable. If LLM timeout occurs, retry with smaller batch_size or fewer parallel workers.'