bench_quick_register

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

Captures pre/post snapshots for self-documentation, mentions caps on cps/duration, and requires out_dir in a safe allowlist. No annotations, so description carries full burden; states it's 'safe for any non-toy proxy' but doesn't explicitly disclose if it modifies state.

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?

Well-structured with a summary and parameter list. Every sentence is informative; no wasted words. Concise yet complete.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, and key behaviors. Hints at output via 'bench artefact JSON' and snapshots. Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Missing some edge cases but sufficiently complete for a load test 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 description must compensate. It provides detailed parameter documentation: target as host:port, cps capped at 1000, duration_sec capped at 600, out_dir must be in safe allowlist, and label as optional human tag. Adds significant meaning beyond schema types and defaults.

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 'Run a SIPp REGISTER load test against TARGET' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like bench_quick_invite and bench_summary.

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?

It provides default values and indicates safety for 'any non-toy proxy', implying when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives.

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