add_http_sampler

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and behavior. It only recicts the primary action and adds no detail about modifying the .jmx file in place, whether changes are reversible, permissions needed, or return behavior. The only implicit behavioral clue is 'existing test plan', which hints that this is not plan creation.

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 sentence that is entirely front-loaded and free of filler. It states the action and target in nine words, earning every part and leaving no unnecessary detail.

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 tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain where in the test plan the sampler is inserted, what happens if the testfile path is invalid, or what observable result the agent should expect. The rich schema covers parameter semantics but not the operational context needed to call a mutating tool correctly.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context or examples, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not need to compensate for gaps that do not exist.

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 ('Add'), a concrete resource ('HTTP request sampler'), and the target context ('existing test plan'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_assertion, add_timer, and add_csv_data_config by naming exactly what kind of element is added.

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: use this tool when an HTTP request sampler needs to be added to an existing test plan. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid existing .jmx file. The phrase 'existing test plan' offers some context but no exclusions.

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