Test Progress Notifications

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds that the effect is emitting a sequence of progress notifications rather than a data mutation, which is useful, but it says nothing about how many notifications, timing, or side effects of the test path.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; nothing wasteful. It could have used a few of those words on the documented-but-unexplained parameter, but as written it is tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. However, for a tool with an undocumented boolean switch and no annotation-independent behavioral detail, the description leaves a real gap around use_test_db and the shape of the notification sequence.

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 0% and the single parameter use_test_db carries no description anywhere. The description never mentions it, so an agent cannot tell what toggling it does or what the default/omitted behavior is.

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?

States a specific action (triggering a sequence of progress notifications) and its purpose (verifying transport-layer support), which is clearly distinguishable from sibling diagnostics like test_simple and test_error_handling. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the verb+resource+intent is unambiguous.

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 purpose clause ('to verify the transport layer supports them') implies when to call it — a connectivity/diagnostic check — but gives no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against test_simple / test_error_handling, which probe adjacent capabilities.

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