itsm_run_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states the operation is 'synthetic' and lists outputs, but does not mention whether persistent state is modified, whether external services are called, permission requirements, or any cleanup behavior. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a tool that 'injects' incidents.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every word adds value. The first sentence states the action and scope; the second lists the expected return values. No redundancy or filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action and return values adequately. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'full ITSM ProofLink loop' entails, why this differs from 'itsm_run_loop', and what side effects occur. Some additional context about the loop's stages or non-production intent would improve completeness.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it avoids inventing any.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inject') and resource ('synthetic test incident through the full ITSM ProofLink loop'), clearly distinguishing it as a test-oriented end-to-end operation. It also names key return values (ticket ID, receipt hash, embedded receipt block). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the very similar sibling 'itsm_run_loop'.

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 this is for testing via 'synthetic test incident', but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Given closely related siblings like 'itsm_run_loop' and 'itsm_create_ticket', the lack of alternatives or a 'use instead when...' statement leaves the agent to infer the distinction.

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