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, and it discloses nothing behavioral: not whether the test saturates/degrades the WAN link, how long it runs, whether the call blocks or returns immediately, or which interface is measured. For an active network-measurement tool this is a serious omission.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing — there is not enough substance for an agent to act on.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a one-parameter diagnostic with no annotations the description still leaves out duration, link impact, and blocking behavior. It is barely adequate context for the tool's complexity.

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 single `interface` parameter is fully documented in the schema (coverage 100%) with a default of "wan2". The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

"执行线路测速" is essentially a Chinese restatement of the name/title "Speed Test" with the word "line" added. It conveys that a line-speed measurement happens but does not distinguish the tool from siblings like iperf_test, ping_test, or traceroute, which are the alternatives an agent would weigh it against.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this versus iperf_test or ping_test, no statement of preconditions, and no note on whether it is safe to run during production traffic. The usage is only implied by the verb.

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