Run the full k6 load test

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the test duration, host restrictions, and authorization requirements, plus the ordering constraint with smoke_test_script. However, it does not mention what the tool returns or error behavior, which is a minor gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and then adds necessary warnings and prerequisites. It is dense but not verbose, earning a high score.

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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, duration, and host configuration. It lacks explicit mention of how to retrieve results, but the existence of get_test_metrics as a sibling tool partially compensates.

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 single parameter runDir is fully described in the schema as returned by generate_k6_script. The description reinforces that context but adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 tool executes a load test using pre-generated parameters, with a specific verb ('executes') and resource ('load test at the VUs/duration/stages baked into the generated script'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing the script from generate_k6_script and implying smoke_test_script is a lighter alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance: call smoke_test_script first, and prerequisites like adding the host to allowedHosts after confirming authorization. It also tells the user what the tool will not do ('the tools won't do it for you'), which clarifies responsibility.

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