smoke_test_zeus

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which is a mixed safety profile. The description adds 'without LLM' to clarify that no language model is invoked, but doesn't disclose what happens during the smoke test (e.g., whether it creates or modifies resources), or what the readiness check entails. There is no contradiction, but the description is thin on behavioral details.

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 essential information: it identifies the tool's purpose and the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the key action 'Smoke Zeus without LLM' and includes a specific HTTP endpoint, which is efficient. No fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has a simple signature (1 optional param), annotations provide some safety context, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. However, given the existence of a sibling 'smoke_test_agent', the description should clarify the difference, and it doesn't explain what 'readiness' means in this context or what 'smoke' entails beyond an HTTP call. It is adequate but with gaps.

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 one optional parameter 'update_checklist' with 0% description coverage in the schema itself. The description does not explain it either, but with only one parameter and no required params, the burden is low. The parameter name is self-explanatory, and the description's focus on 'readiness' and 'describe' implies the checklist is updated, but explicit clarification would be better.

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 states the tool performs a 'smoke test' on Zeus and mentions a specific endpoint (POST /v2/{bucket}/{scope}/describe), which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'smoke_test_agent' – the name 'smoke_test_zeus' is a tautology, and the description doesn't clarify what makes it distinct from the agent variant.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose smoke_test_zeus over smoke_test_agent or other diagnostic tools. The context signals show no explicit usage context, so an agent would have to infer from the name.

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