run_behavior_test

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses 'embedding similarity' and handles long outputs via 'sentence-level max similarity'. This gives meaningful insight into behavior beyond basic expectations.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences plus a line. Each sentence provides distinct value: purpose, mechanism, and handling of long outputs. No wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 three clearly documented parameters in the schema, an output schema (per context), and helpful behavioral details, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, and a key edge case (long outputs). No obvious gaps.

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 100% and each parameter already has a clear schema description. The tool description restates the purpose of 'prompt' (context/logging) and the nature of 'expected_behavior' (plain-language), but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clear verb and resource: 'Run a single behavioral assertion'. It explains the technique (embedding similarity) and goal (check semantic satisfaction). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools 'compare_outputs' and 'list_builtin_behaviors', which would help selection.

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 implies usage for checking expected behavior semantically, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_outputs', or when not to use it. No prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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