run_stress_test

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions '[mode: hybrid]' which hints at behavior but does not explain what hybrid means or disclose side effects like resource consumption, potential system impact, or whether it modifies state. This is a significant gap for a load test tool.

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 a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters. It omits critical details and reads more like a label than a useful description. The brevity detracts from its utility rather than enhancing it.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, expected behavior, prerequisites, or possible side effects. The complexity of the tool demands far more context than this single sentence provides.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It refers indirectly to 'endpoint or UI surface' which loosely maps to targetType and endpoints, but does not explain projectPath, concurrency, duration, or rampUp. The description fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it performs a concurrency/load test against an endpoint or UI surface, using a specific verb ('load test') and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_scenario_test or run_simulation, but the focus on load/concurrency is a distinct purpose.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as run_scenario_test and run_simulation overlap conceptually, but the description does not mention when to prefer run_stress_test, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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