run_speedtest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the use of LibreSpeed CLIaine, the time cost (30-90 seconds), and the specific data returned. This goes beyond a simple restatement and informs the agent of latency and performance implications. It lacks explicit side-effect information, but the behavior is sufficiently transparent for a diagnostic speed test.

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 three sentence-equivalents, each earning its place: purpose, performance caveat, and return values. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no filler or repetition. This is an ideal length for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero-parameter tool with a valid output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, how long it takes, and what it returns. It does not mention dependence on internet connectivity or potential failure modes, but these are reasonably inferred from 'internet speed test.' The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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 tool accepts zero parametersholiday, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the calibration, zero parameters receive a baseline of 4. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps because there are no gaps.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run an internet speed test from the WLAN Pi.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling diagnostics like get_device_stats or get_reachability. The tool's identity is fully captured in the first sentence.

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 provides clear context by noting that the test is slow and typically takes 30-90 seconds, which helps an agent decide whether this tool is appropriate for a task that expects quick results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but none are obvious among the siblings. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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