SingleOps API contract test

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is to add scope and output context. It does: it discloses that only parameter-free GET routes are replayed and gives the return shape {probed, passed, failed, results[]} despite no output schema. Missing detail on what a 'failed' entry contains or whether probing hits live rate limits.

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?

One tightly packed sentence that front-loads the mechanism, then the purpose, then the return shape. Nothing is redundant and no filler is present.

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 single-optional-param diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description conveys mechanism, intent, and the top-level result envelope. It falls slightly short on what the per-route `results[]` entries or 'failed' classification mean, which an agent would need to interpret the diagnostic output.

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% and the single optional `limit` parameter is already documented in the schema (max routes to probe, default 25). The description adds no extra semantics about what limiting routes means for coverage or result fidelity, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific mechanism (replay parameter-free GET routes, diff response keys against a known map) and an explicit goal (detect SingleOps changing its internal API). This clearly distinguishes it from data-returning siblings like singleops_call_route and singleops_discover_tools, which fetch values rather than validate contracts.

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 stated goal ('to detect SingleOps changing its internal API') implies the usage context of a contract/regression check, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer that this is not for retrieving data and that only parameter-free routes are covered.

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