plan_fault_experiment

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

Annotations are all false/absent, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that planning is not a download/start step, but it does not disclose whether binding creates persistent state, whether the plan is mutable or re-runnable, or what side effects occur. This is partial transparency.

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 with the core purpose first and the prerequisite second. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 prerequisite is covered and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. However, the description does not situate this in the broader workflow—such as what follows plan_fault_experiment or how it differs from plan_experiment and run_fault_experiment—and the meaning of 'bind' is never elaborated.

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% and each parameter has a meaningful description, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The tool description adds no direct parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Bind') and a specific resource ('declared loopback Toxiproxy experiment') and names the exact toxic scenarios. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic siblings like plan_experiment or plan_capture, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 the prerequisite—Toxiproxy must be prepared by start_capability_setup—and says planning neither downloads nor starts it. This is concrete when-to-use guidance, though it does not say when not to use it or name alternatives.

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