Share Test Results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explains the endpoint fingerprint rule, refusal and isolation for different endpoints, the opt-in nature, and that nothing is auto-finalized. These are behavioral details beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 three sentences with no filler. The core action and destination are front-loaded, followed by the endpoint condition, then the non-finalization caveat. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main invocation constraints, behavior, and downstream effects well. The only notable gap is the unexplained optional model_id parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 description explains the roles of source_profile and profile via the phrase 'from source_profile into profile.' However, schema description coverage is 0% and model_id is never mentioned, leaving its purpose and optional behavior undocumented. Some parameter meaning is added, but not complete.

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 states a specific operation — copying approved test results from source_profile into profile — and adds a defining condition (same LM Studio instance). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools by resource and action, even without naming an alternative.

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?

It explicitly says when to use the tool: opt-in sharing to avoid redundant regimen runs. It also gives a when-not: different endpoints are refused and stay isolated. It mentions later regimen/finalize aggregation instead of naming a specific sibling alternative, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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