ixia_set_rate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it stops any running test and restarts at the new rate, indicating it is a mutating operation with side effects. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, which are relevant for a tool that modifies system state.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds crucial behavioral context in the second. Both sentences are necessary and efficient, with no redundant or vague language, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters adequately, but lacks details on output format or error conditions, which would be helpful for a mutating tool. The absence of an output schema means the description could do more to explain what happens after invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Replayer ID' and 'Rate in Gbps'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by specifying 'rate in Gbps' in the opening sentence, but does not provide additional context like valid ranges or examples beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific action ('Set'), the target resource ('Ixia traffic replayer'), and the parameter ('specific rate in Gbps'), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ixia_status' and 'ixia_stop' by focusing on rate configuration rather than status checking or stopping.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to set the Ixia traffic replayer to a specific rate') and implies when not to use it (e.g., for checking status or stopping, which are covered by 'ixia_status' and 'ixia_stop'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusions, which prevents a score of 5.

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