Run Chaos Experiment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context by saying the target script is 'workspace-sandboxed', which qualifies the scope of potential damage, and that it reports 'resulting events', giving a sense of the output. It does not contradict the annotations and adds meaningful safety context beyond them.

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 core action and safety boundary, followed by the result. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant wording or restating of the tool name.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what 'events' look like and how to choose faults; it does neither. It also does not point to chaos.list_faults for fault discovery or mention timeout/session defaults. The core contract is clear, but important operational details are left to inference.

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 50%, with script and session_id documented. The description adds only loose meaning for faults ('selected chaos faults') and does not explain what fault strings are valid or how timeout_seconds behaves. It partially reinforces parameter intent but does not fully compensate for the undocumented 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 states a specific action ('Run'), a specific resource ('workspace-sandboxed target script'), and the expected outcome ('report the resulting events'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like chaos.list_faults, which only enumerate faults, and lens.* tools, which analyze runs rather than execute them.

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 when this tool should be used: when a script should be executed under chaos faults. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention chaos.list_faults as the way to discover valid fault names. The intended usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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