itsm_run_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool injects a synthetic test incident and returns specific items, but does not clarify whether this is non-destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. 'Synthetic test incident' weakly implies safety, but falls short.

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 that immediately states the action and purpose, followed by the return values. Every word is informative with no fluff.

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 zero-parameter test tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and return values. It lacks explanation of the 'ProofLink loop' and safety implications, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably 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?

No parameters exist, so schema description coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter details.

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 uses specific verb 'inject' and clearly identifies the resource as a synthetic test incident processed through the 'full ITSM ProofLink loop'. It also states the return values. This differentiates it from sibling tools like itsm_create_ticket (real ticket) and itsm_run_loop (generic loop).

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 use for testing by mentioning 'synthetic test incident', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like itsm_create_ticket or itsm_run_loop. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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