test_stable

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully implies a time-consuming operation ('for duration_ms'), but does not say whether it blocks/polls, how it fails on an assertion miss, or its polling cadence. With annotations carrying safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core assertion leads and the examples clarify scope. It is tightly sized, though the terseness leaves some parameter detail unaddressed.

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 need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is parameter meaning at 0% schema coverage, where only half the params are described. Adequate but incomplete for a 4-parameter assertion tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conveys real meaning for two of four params (tolerance = maximum permitted movement; duration_ms = observation window), which is genuine added semantics. However, symbol and interval_ms are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb ('Assert') and a precise behavior: a value must not move more than tolerance over duration_ms. The parenthetical examples (weight, pressure, PID output, state) make the intent concrete. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like test_expect or test_response.

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?

Calling it a 'settle check' implies the usage context (verifying a signal has stabilized) but no when-to-use/when-not or alternative tool is named. An agent must infer whether to reach for test_stable versus test_expect or ads_wait_until.

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