Bandwidth Test

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds critical context: the test saturates the link and is not auto-retried. This goes beyond the annotations, which already indicate safe behavior, to warn about real-world impact.

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 just two sentences. The first sentence states purpose and output, the second adds key constraints and warnings. Every word is necessary; no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly includes return format. It covers the main behavioral traits (duration cap, link saturation, no retry). However, it does not mention error cases (e.g., if the remote host is not running a btest server). For a simple diagnostic tool, this is nearly complete.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying that the tool returns TX and RX throughput in Mbps, which is not present in the input schema. No further parameter details are needed beyond what schema provides.

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 runs a RouterOS bandwidth test, specifies it tests from router to a remote host running a btest server, and returns TX/RX throughput. It distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostic tools like ping, traceroute, and torch by focusing specifically on bandwidth testing.

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 context about duration cap and link saturation, implying careful use, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., ping for latency, traceroute for path). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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