describe_test

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned fields, which is useful, but says nothing about whether this is a pure read, how it behaves for an unknown or misspelled test name (error vs. empty), or whether identifiers are case-sensitive — real risks for a name-keyed lookup with no enum.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and then lists the returns. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape — and it does at a high level via four enumerated fields. However, it leaves out how to acquire a valid test identifier and what happens on lookup failure, which are the two things an agent most needs for a single-key lookup tool.

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 0%: the single required parameter "test" is a bare untyped-in-practice string with no description, no enum, and no example. The description implies it is a test identifier but never gives the accepted form (menu title? slug? key?) or how to obtain valid values, so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb ("Describe") and resource ("one test"), then enumerates exactly what will be returned: menu title, effect-size metric, extra parameters, supported analysis types. This makes it clearly distinguishable from list_tests (one vs. many), though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 "Describe one test" implies a per-test lookup that follows a listing step, but the description never states when to call this versus list_tests, power_analysis, or compute_effect_size, nor any prerequisite (e.g., that a valid test identifier must come from list_tests first).

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