test_expect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: supported operators, relative/absolute tolerance, 'in between', the waiting behavior when within_ms>0, and the per-check pass/fail return with timestamps. It does not pause to describe rate limits or symbol resolution, but the added context is strong.

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 dense and front-loaded: purpose first, then check syntax, operator semantics, waiting behavior, and return shape. Every sentence adds necessary information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered structurally, but the description still adds helpful return detail. Gaps remain: interval_ms is unexplained, the source/nature of 'live values' and symbol resolution is vague, and there is no guidance on sibling alternatives. Given the sparse schema, these omissions leave the definition only adequately 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does a good job for 'checks' by explaining the object fields and the op enum, and it clarifies 'within_ms' waiting behavior. However, it completely omits 'interval_ms', leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 verb and resource: 'Assert conditions on live values.' It clearly conveys the core operation and even details the check structure. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling assertion or wait tools like test_stable, test_response, or ads_wait_until.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The note about within_ms>0 waiting is a behavioral parameter detail, not a usage recommendation or exclusion. The agent must infer the intended context solely from the purpose statement.

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