algo_stress_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it discloses the core behavior of comparing two programs, the use of randomized inputs, and the loop-until-failure terminition. It doesn't mention execution environment or what happens when no failure is found, but the main operational traits are transparent.

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?

One tightly packed sentence that fronts the defining concept ('Automated differential tester') and then gives the mechanism and goal in order. Every word contributes; there is no repetition 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns or reports when it finds a failure, and what happens if no failure is found within maxIterations. The description is clear about the process but silent about the result shape, leaving an agent to guess at the tool's terminal behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so by the baseline rule this dimension already has adequate documentation. The description reinforces the roles of solutionCode and bruteForceCode through the 'fast solution versus brute-force baseline' framing but does not add syntax, format, or constraint details 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 opens with 'Automated differential tester', a specific noun phrase that names the technique and resource. It then states exactly what it does — runs a fast solution against a brute-force baseline with randomized inputs — which clearly separates it from siblings like algo_run_sandboxed, algo_generate_edge_cases, and algo_check_plagiarism.

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 clearly indicates the use case: when you have a fast solution and a brute-force reference and want to find a failing edge case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the differential-testing framing provides clear context without exclusions.

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