run_stress_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behaviors: uses random input actions, runs for a duration, and reports crashes/new errors. However, it does not warn about potential side effects (e.g., game state corruption, need for the game to be running) that one would expect for a stress-test tool.

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, focused sentence. Every phrase adds value: the action, the resource, the method (random inputs), the duration, and the expected output. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and output, but lacks necessary context for a complete picture: no mention of prerequisites (e.g., game must be running), no clarification of the 'actions' parameter, and no guidance on potential consequences. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more completeness is expected.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'duration' (seconds) but leaves 'actions' ambiguous—the description's phrase 'random input actions' refers to the general behavior, not the parameter. Since one of two parameters remains unexplained, the description insufficiently compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 what the tool does: 'Hammer the running game with random input actions for a duration in seconds and report crashes and new log errors'. It uses a specific verb, identifies the resource (running game), and describes the output, distinguishing it from sibling simulation tools like simulate_key or run_test_scenario.

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 implies a clear usage context: stress testing a running game with random inputs over a specified duration. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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