test_composition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'using proxy implementations,' which signals the tool does not execute real integrations, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, what the output looks like, or any error behavior. This is insufficient for a testing tool.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It includes essential qualifiers (composition, discovery goal, proxy implementations) without any fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return value, how results are reported, or any assumptions about the test environment. It leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to understand what happens after invocation.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (compositionId, inputs), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action (Test), the object (a tool composition), and the context (against the discovery goal using proxy implementations). This distinguishes it from siblings like invoke_planned_tool or discover_tools by focusing specifically on testing a composition with proxies.

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 implies the tool is used for testing a composition, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., before invoking the actual tool) or provide exclusions. It lacks clear context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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