gen_test_dispatcher

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 explains the dry_run parameter's effect ('Returns the plan without writing') but does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing sets, required permissions, or persistence beyond testing.

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 well-structured with a clear first line, usage scenario, and parameter list. It is concise but the parameter section is slightly verbose for a tool description, though it adds necessary 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?

While the tool has an output schema, the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the plan or success message). It also does not explain system impact, making it only partially complete for a provisioning 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: set_id's default, destinations with example SIP URIs, dry_run's behavior, and socket's purpose. However, 'per row' is ambiguous and could be clearer.

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 the tool 'Provision a dispatcher set with a handful of test destinations', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'dispatcher_add' by focusing on bulk test setup for empty dispatcher tables.

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 explicitly mentions when to use the tool: 'when you have a scenario template that uses ds_select_dst(...) but the dispatcher table is empty.' It provides context but does not contrast with alternatives like 'dispatcher_add' or mention when not to use.

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