Bandwidth Test

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the 30-second duration cap and that results are TX/RX throughput in Mbps. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent. No side effects are mentioned, but the description covers the key behavioral traits.

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, concise and front-loaded with the action. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return values (TX/RX in Mbps). It covers the essential information for a simple test tool. Could add the output structure, but unnecessary for this context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. It reiterates the duration cap already in the schema. No additional meaning or examples are provided for parameters.

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: run a RouterOS bandwidth test from the router to a remote host running a btest server, returning TX/RX throughput in Mbps. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ping or traceroute by specifying it's a bandwidth test.

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 implies the tool is for testing bandwidth between router and a specific host, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., ping for latency, torch for packet analysis). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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