speed_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description fails to mention that this tool likely performs a network speed measurement, which may consume bandwidth, take time to complete, or require specific permissions. It also does not indicate whether the operation is read-only or potentially disruptive, leaving the agent with no behavioral expectations.

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 extremely short, consisting of only five Chinese characters. While concise in word count, it is under-specified rather than effectively concise; it omits essential context and detail, so it fails to earn its place as a useful description.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema present, the tool is not highly complex, but the description is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's role, behavior, or expected results. It lacks information about the test duration, metrics returned, and whether the tool is suitable for recurring diagnostics, leaving the agent guessing in a context with many similar diagnostic tools.

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 already provides a 100% description coverage for the single 'interface' parameter, including its default value 'wan2'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantic burden.

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 '执行线路测速' translates to 'Execute line speed test', which essentially restates the tool name 'speed_test' with only minimal added context ('line'). It does not specify what metrics are tested (upload/download/latency), the scope of the test, or how it differs from the sibling 'iperf_test', making it closer to a tautology than a clear purpose statement.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus other diagnostic siblings like ping_test, traceroute, or iperf_test, nor does it mention any prerequisites, frequency, or scenarios where speed_test is appropriate.

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