stress_test_decision

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only provides a high-level summary ('Stress a scenario assumption and see if the winner holds') without explaining side effects, prerequisites, return format, or how the composite operation works. This is insufficient for a complex tool.

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 a single sentence, but it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. It under-specifies the tool's behavior and inputs, making it terse rather than genuinely concise. Essential information is sacrificed for brevity.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct invocation. It lacks details on required inputs, the meaning of 'winner', how stress testing is performed, and what the result represents. The description is severely incomplete.

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 8 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions), and the tool description does not mention any parameter names, meanings, or relationships. The description adds no value in explaining what 'options', 'criteria', 'stress', 'inputs', or 'method' mean, leaving users completely in the dark.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('stress') and resource ('scenario assumption'), and the outcome ('see if the winner holds'). The 'COMPOSITE (simulate x decide)' label distinguishes it from the separate sim_* and decide_* sibling tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for combined simulation and decision tasks via the 'COMPOSITE (simulate x decide)' label, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or provide exclusions. No specific sibling tools are named as alternatives, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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