quick_test

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It states it runs a diagnostic prompt, implying no side effects, but doesn't disclose if tests are stateless or have restrictions. Adequate but lacks depth on behavioral traits.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key info, no waste. Perfectly concise for a simple 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one enum parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimal but adequate for basic use. However, it doesn't explain the purpose of each test type, leaving the agent to rely solely on enum names. Could be more complete for a new user.

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?

Description does not mention the lone parameter 'test_type' or its enum values. The schema provides the enum, but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain what each test type does. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 runs a diagnostic prompt to sanity-check the model, with a specific verb and resource. The enum values for test_type add specificity, but the description doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'chat' or 'health_check', missing a clear differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for sanity checking, but doesn't mention when not to use it or compare to siblings like 'chat' or 'health_check'.

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