Ingero

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that no GPU or root is needed, which is useful context about resource requirements. However, it doesn't describe other behavioral traits such as execution time, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what happens if the scenario fails. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 very concise, consisting of just one sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key constraint. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the main action, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), a single parameter with full schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and a key constraint, but it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., execution details) and usage guidelines relative to siblings to be fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'scenario' with its allowed values. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what each scenario entails or default behaviors. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Run a synthetic demo scenario') and the outcome ('return the stats snapshot'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'run_sql' or 'get_test_report' in terms of when to choose one over another.

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 includes a constraint ('No GPU or root needed'), which provides some context about when the tool can be used, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_sql' or 'get_test_report'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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