plan_fault_experiment

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

Apart from annotations (all false), the description adds that planning neither downloads nor starts Toxiproxy and that Toxiproxy must be pre-prepared. This discloses some behavioral boundaries but leaves the side effects of 'binding' undefined—whether it creates persistent state, is idempotent, or modifies existing plans. With no annotation hints, more behavioral detail would be needed.

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 concise sentences: the first states the primary action, the second gives a critical prerequisite and non-behavior. No filler words.

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 description provides the essential prerequisite and non-actions, and the schema covers parameter details; the output schema exists so return values are not needed. However, the exact meaning of 'bind' and post-planning steps (e.g., run_fault_experiment) are left implicit, which is acceptable given the tool's focused role but not fully explicit.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including guidance to inspect get_declared_workflow and source IDs from other tools. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies given the schema's completeness.

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 identifies the tool as binding a declared loopback Toxiproxy experiment with its toxic scenarios, using a specific action ('bind') and target. It differentiates from siblings by noting that planning neither downloads nor starts Toxiproxy, which separates it from start_capability_setup and run_fault_experiment.

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?

It explicitly states that Toxiproxy must already be prepared by start_capability_setup, indicating this tool is for the planning phase after setup. It clarifies what the tool does not do (download/start), providing context for when to use it versus setup/run tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for execution.

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