smoke_test_agent

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds some behavioral context: it requires a specific client version and LLM key, and it may return a guide-only docker compose next_action. However, it does not explain side effects, failure modes, or what 'run_turn' entails. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the core dependency, but the second sentence is dense and somewhat cryptic. It earns its place by adding conditional behavior, but the phrasing is awkward and could be clearer. Not overly verbose, but not well-structured.

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 there is an output schema, the description needn't explain return values, but it still lacks essential context: what the tool actually does, when to use it, and what the parameters mean. The dependency and conditional behavior are useful but incomplete. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly without more information.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the 'question' parameter or 'update_checklist' parameter at all. The description's mention of 'run_turn' and 'next_action' hints at behavior but not parameter meaning. With 0% coverage and no param explanation, this is a significant gap.

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 says 'One ZeusRuntime run_turn' but does not clearly state what the tool does. It mentions a dependency and a conditional behavior about docker compose, but the core action is vague. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like smoke_test_zeus or diagnose_error.

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 a conditional behavior (if client missing, return guide-only docker compose next_action) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No clear context for when an agent should invoke smoke_test_agent over smoke_test_zeus or diagnose_error.

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