tri_model_red_team

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Stress-test' without explaining what that entails (e.g., does it generate adversarial inputs? check vulnerabilities?). No disclosure of side effects, permissions, or destructive potential.

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 (one sentence, 9 words). It is front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover more context without becoming verbose.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (presumably covering return values), the description is minimal. It lacks explanation of output, usage conditions, and differentiation from siblings, making it incomplete for an agent.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'plan'. The meaning of 'preset', 'context', and 'success_criteria' is left entirely to inference from their names, with no additional context provided.

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 ('Stress-test'), the resource ('a plan'), and the method ('through three different model families'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'tri_model_scan' or 'tri_model_compare' by implying adversarial testing, though this could be more explicit.

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?

No usage guidelines provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tri_model_scan' or 'tri_model_compare', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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