add_thread_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that a thread group is added and implies mutation, but does not mention side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens on success/failure. The brief note about the parent node being usually the TestPlan root is the only extra context.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical clarification adds useful context without bloat.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not mention key parameters like planId, nor the relationship between loops and durationSeconds (though the schema mentions it). It also lacks any indication of what the tool returns or how the agent should interpret the result. The description is insufficient for full correct usage.

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 already describes 5 of 7 parameters, providing explanations for parentId, numThreads, rampTimeSeconds, loops, and durationSeconds. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'given parent node' which relates to parentId, but does not clarify name or planId. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Add) and the resource (Thread Group), and clarifies 'virtual users'. It also indicates the placement under a parent node. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling add_* tools, though the resource type is distinct enough that an agent might infer the difference.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the typical parent node, but does not specify when to prefer this over other nodes or tools. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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