run_resiliency_test

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

The description indicates the tool sends invalid requests (boundary condition testing) but provides no detail on side effects, permissions needed, or whether it is safe to run. With no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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, but the second sentence is somewhat redundant. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the primary action.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not mention what the tool returns. Given the complexity of a resiliency test, this is a significant gap. Also lacks connection to sibling tools.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the overall purpose but does not extend meaning for individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 runs Specmatic resiliency tests with boundary condition testing, specifying it tests how the API handles contract-invalid requests. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tool 'run_contract_test', which may also test contract conformance.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_contract_test' or 'manage_mock_server'. No prerequisites or context for invocation are provided.

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