prufa_run_gremlin

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and reveals key behaviors: dry-run unless authorized, no payments, credential requirements, wait behavior, plan-dependent step budget. Lacks error/timeout details but still strong.

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?

Packed with information but slightly lengthy. Front-loaded with core purpose, then conditions and details. Could be more concise but well-structured with clear sections.

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 no output schema and a complex tool, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, dependencies, parameters, and plan limits. Defines return format for wait=true/false. Very complete.

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 50%; description adds context for url, wait, credentials, and idempotency_key beyond schema. Provides usage guidance for wait and idempotency, and prerequisite for credentials.

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 it runs a gremlin chaos-QA session on a URL, imitating a difficult user with plain-code detectors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like prufa_run_audit and prufa_run_flow.

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?

Explicitly mentions when to use (stress-test real flows beyond deterministic audit), when not to use (mutations only dry-run unless authorized), and alternatives (prufa_authorize_domain, prufa_get_usage for budget).

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