tournament.quick_test

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

Without annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions specifics like single scenario/judge and no synthesis call, but it does not indicate whether the operation is safe (e.g., read-only), destructive, or has other side effects.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and key constraints ('one scenario', 'one judge', 'no synthesis model call').

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 has 3 parameters (none with schema descriptions), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameters, return values, or usage context, leaving an agent unable to invoke the tool correctly.

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 explain parameter meanings. The description only mentions 'one scenario' and 'one judge' but does not map to the parameters 'model', 'plugin', or 'scenario', nor does it clarify their roles or constraints.

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 performs a quick test with one scenario, one judge, and no synthesis call. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tournament.leaderboard and tournament.evaluate, which imply broader or more comprehensive evaluation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for quick tests but does not state prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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