start_ramp_test

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 does reveal the critical dry-run vs. actual execution behavior and the confirm parameter's role, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like whether this is a long-running operation, what happens if a test is already running, error conditions, or what the tool returns (especially problematic with no output schema).

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 perfectly concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage guidance about the confirm parameter. There's zero wasted text, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a complex 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose and the critical confirm parameter behavior well, but doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or the relationship between parameters. Given the complexity and lack of structured metadata, it should do more to compensate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the confirm parameter's semantics ('Set confirm=true to actually start; default is a dry run'), which provides context beyond the schema's technical description. However, it doesn't add meaningful context for the other 6 parameters 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 ('Start a RAMP performance test') and resource ('on the RAMP server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'stop_ramp_test' or 'list_test_runs'. It provides a complete verb+resource+scope statement that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Set confirm=true to actually start; default is a dry run that shows what would run.' This gives clear instructions on when to use the tool for actual execution versus simulation, addressing the key decision point for invocation.

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