sn_atf

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'run' (mutation) but does not warn about potential side effects like executing test suites, asynchronous behavior, or system impact. The wait/timeout parameters exist in the schema, but the description does not explain the synchronous nature or implications of running tests. This is a significant gap for a tool that triggers executions.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the tool's name and core operations. It is concise with zero filler, every word contributing to the purpose. The em dash effectively introduces the function list, making it highly scannable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema or annotations), the description provides only a minimal overview. The schema fills in parameter details, but the description lacks guidance on the test lifecycle (e.g., list → run → results), potential delays, or error scenarios. It is adequate for basic selection but incomplete for safe and effective invocation in all but the simplest use cases.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level overview but does not enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides. For example, 'action' is fully described in the enum, and the description does not add any new semantic context to parameters like 'query', 'wait', or 'timeout'. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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's domain ('Automated Test Framework') and its primary operations ('list, run, and get results for ATF tests and test suites'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sn_query or sn_script, as it is specifically for ATF test management. The verb-resource pairing is explicit and 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 description indicates clear use cases: listing, running, and retrieving results for ATF tests/suites. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, the ATF-specific naming inherently separates it from generic query or script tools. No exclusions are provided, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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