test_response

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: writes are gated per symbol, and originals are restored afterwards unless restore=false. It does not explain timeout behavior or failure modes, and there is mild tension between destructiveHint=true and the default restore=true, but the added disclosure is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then results, then side effects, in a compact form with an inline example. Slightly dense with parentheticals and a dotted symbol path, but every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Given four params with a nested stimulus object, the description covers the critical stimulus/restore semantics but is silent on timeout_ms, a minor gap for a mutation tool that otherwise explains its side effects.

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 the load. It clarifies stimulus format ({symbol: value}) and the meaning of restore=false, but leaves response and timeout_ms (default 5000) unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: writes a stimulus mapping and measures PLC-timestamped latency until a response condition holds, illustrated with a concrete expression ('MAIN.fbValve.bOpen == TRUE'). Clear purpose, but it never names or contrasts with siblings test_expect/test_stable/test_scenario, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied by the description — this is for measuring how fast an FB reacts to an injected stimulus — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to the alternative test_* tools for assertions or stability checks. Guidance exists only by inference.

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