run_setup_tests

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

No annotations provided. The description warns of a WRITE OPERATION and mentions auto-approving certificates, but this contradicts the claim of 'without making any configuration changes'. No details on side effects, permissions, or output behavior.

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?

Reasonably concise with a front-loaded warning. However, the description includes redundant phrasing and inaccurate parameter references, which detracts from efficiency.

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?

No output schema, so the description should clarify what the test result looks like or next steps. It only mentions running the test, leaving the agent without knowledge of the response format or success/failure indicators.

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 100% so baseline is 3. However, the description incorrectly mentions 'trust_certificates' and 'trust_fingerprints' parameters that are not in the schema, misleading the agent. It adds no useful semantics 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 it runs setup tests for an existing connection and that it tests without configuration changes. However, the mention of optional parameters not in the input schema creates confusion, preventing a perfect score.

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 siblings like run_destination_setup_tests or run_setup_tests_log_service. The warning 'Confirm with user' is present but no explicit when or when-not criteria.

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