test_completion

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: it is a real inference call, rate-limited, consumes GPU cycles, clamps max_tokens, caps prompt size (rejects oversized), and the rate limiter bounds frequency not per-call cost. Return shape is also given. This goes well beyond a minimal description.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the core purpose and packs in all critical constraints, alternatives, and return fields without redundancy. Every clause adds value; no 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values but does anyway. It covers purpose, usage, safety, rate limits, parameter constraints, and alternatives. For a tool with 2 params and moderate complexity, this is fully complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains prompt as 'caller-supplied' and adds behavioral semantics for max_tokens (clamped) and prompt (capped, oversized rejected). It doesn't mention max_tokens is optional or its default, but the schema already shows default=16. This is a strong addition, though not exhaustive.

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 that the tool performs a real /v1/chat/completions call with a user-supplied prompt for manual sanity-checking. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly comparing to check_health(deep=True) and noting the user-controlled nature, and from the other get/list tools which are obviously not completion calls.

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?

Provides explicit context: 'for manual sanity-checking' and directly names the alternative check_health. It also warns about rate limiting and GPU consumption, implying it should be used sparingly, and clarifies when not to rely on it (costly, rate-limited).

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