soak_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose two useful constraints: the scenario must be allowlisted and execution is bounded by the server's hard run limit. However, it does not explain what happens when runs exceed the limit, whether the operation has side effects on server state, or how results are returned.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. Every phrase ('Repeat', 'allowlisted', 'hard run limit') contributes meaning.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, low schema coverage, and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves important gaps: the semantics of minimum_pass_rate, the meaning of the server's run limit, and how to identify an allowlisted scenario are not covered. The output schema exists, so return format is not a missing piece, but the operational context is incomplete.

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% and the description does not compensate: it never mentions runs or minimum_pass_rate, and only indirectly relates to scenario. An agent cannot tell what values are valid for runs, what the default 0.99 threshold means, or how the parameters interact with the hard run limit.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Repeat', and identifies a resource, 'an allowlisted scenario', which makes the soak-testing intent clear. It is distinguishable from run_scenario by implying repeated execution, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 phrase 'Repeat an allowlisted scenario' implies this tool is for running a scenario multiple times rather than once, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over run_scenario or list_scenarios. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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