test_agent

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

Discloses synchronous polling behavior, 2-second interval, MCP notifications, timeout, and return fields. However, lacks explanation of the 'ctx' parameter and does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or has side effects, though it is implied to be non-destructive.

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?

Concisely structured: first sentence states purpose, then explains mechanics and usage, followed by arguments. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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?

Provides sufficient context for a test tool: describes behavior, timeout, polling, notifications, and links to sibling tools for production use and logs. Missing details on returned status format, but overall complete given the tool's scope.

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?

The description explains the purpose of agent_id and prompt, but the required 'ctx' parameter is completely undocumented in the description. With 0% schema coverage, the description should cover all parameters, and this omission reduces utility for the agent.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is a quick synchronous test of an agent with a 90-second timeout, distinguishing it from production alternatives like run_agent. It specifies the verb 'test' and resource 'agent', and advises using get_run_logs afterwards.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (quick synchronous test) and when not (production, prefer run_agent + get_run_status). Also suggests using get_run_logs for output, providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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