claude_self_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that no tools are actually invoked, which is a key safety trait. It also discloses the exact argument wrapping requirement (the 'req' object) and the backwards-compatibility fallback ('args={}'), giving the agent precise calling behavior. It does not cover error handling or output format, but those are partially covered by the output schema.

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 structured with a clear purpose statement, a note on metadata-only behavior, and then the argument shape. It includes an example and a note about backwards compatibility, which are useful. It is somewhat verbose but each part contributes to understanding the tool. The key information is front-loaded with the purpose and the no-invocation note.

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 the tool has one parameter with a nested structure and no schema descriptions, the description is not fully complete. It explains the wrapper structure but does not define the meaning of 'include' or 'only_show_tolerant', which are essential for correct use. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the parameter semantics are left underspecified, making it less than complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the overall shape: arguments must be wrapped in a 'req' object, and it provides an example with 'include' and 'only_show_tolerant'. However, it does not explain the semantics of these fields (what 'include' filters or what 'tolerant' means), leaving some ambiguity. The example helps, but the meaning of the fields is only implied.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: inspecting every registered tool's input schema and reporting robustness. It is specific with a verb ('inspect') and a resource ('registered tool's input schema'), and it explicitly distinguishes itself as a metadata-only check that does not invoke tools. This differentiates it from sibling tools like claude_health or claude_run_task.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. It implies that it is for schema inspection and robustness checking, but it does not provide guidance on when a user would prefer this over other tools. The absence of any alternative comparison leaves the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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