Assert

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the operation is async (not immediate), returns a run ID for tracking, and requires polling with assert_status for completion. It doesn't mention error handling, timeout behavior, or authentication requirements, but covers the essential execution model.

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 perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: states the purpose, explains the input options, and provides critical usage guidance about async behavior. No wasted words, front-loaded with core functionality.

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?

Given the complexity (async execution with polling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the execution model and relationship to assert_status. It could be more complete by mentioning what the run ID represents or error cases, but covers the essential context for proper tool selection and invocation.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the scenario_id/markdown alternatives and the async nature, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage patterns.

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 specific action ('Execute a test scenario'), the resource ('test scenario'), and the outcome ('return a run ID'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this tool initiates runs while assert_status polls for completion and assert_list/assert_generate handle other operations.

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 provides when-to-use guidance: use this tool to start a test run, and use assert_status to poll for completion. It also distinguishes between using saved scenarios (scenario_id) vs. ad-hoc markdown, though it doesn't explicitly mention when to choose between these alternatives.

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