loopback_test

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses duration (~2 min), safety (non-disruptive), and asynchronous behavior (wait=False returns immediately with a test id). This goes beyond a simple read/write hint and provides useful operational context, though it does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key action and purpose, then adds safety and asynchronous behavior. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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 test tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, duration, safety, and async polling option. It could mention timeout behavior or what test_result returns, but those are arguably covered by the existence of sibling tools. The description is adequately complete for the moderate complexity.

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 'service' as 'a site alias | service_id' and clarifies the effect of 'wait=False' (immediate return with test id). However, 'timeout_s' is not explained, leaving one of three parameters under-specified. Partial compensation, not full.

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's purpose: 'Run a Loopback test' that 'proves data passes both ways between AussieBB and the NBN box/node'. This specific verb+resource phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_connection or run_diagnostic, which likely have different scopes.

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 when to use this tool (when you need to verify bidirectional data flow) and notes it is 'Safe, non-disruptive', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like check_connection or run_diagnostic, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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