Smoke-test a generated k6 script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the minimal execution scope (1 VU/1 iteration), the purpose (fast error detection), and the workflow position. It does not detail side effects or output, but for a smoke-test tool this is acceptable and non-contradictory.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with purpose, scope, and usage order. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential context: what it runs, at what scale, and when to invoke it. It does not explain return values or error behavior, but these are not critical for the primary workflow.

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 100%, with the only parameter (runDir) already described as being returned by generate_k6_script. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but schema fully covers it.

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?

Description states a specific action ('Runs the script for 1 VU / 1 iteration') with clear scope and intent ('catch syntax or runtime errors fast'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_load_test by explicitly contrasting with a full load test.

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: 'Always call this before run_load_test.' This also implies when not to use it (i.e., not for full load testing) and names the key alternative.

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