run_runtime_smoke

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

Annotations provide only openWorldHint: false, offering little behavioral context. The description mentions 'with cleanup evidence' but does not specify what cleanup entails, whether it is destructive, or what side effects occur. No readOnlyHint is present, so the agent cannot assess safety. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the verb.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the essential action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, which might be acceptable if the tool is well-known, but for an AI agent, it is borderline under-specified.

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 complexity of a smoke test scenario plan and the lack of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, success indicators, or error conditions. Combined with the vague parameter semantics, the agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool reliably.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'plan' parameter. It describes it as a 'scenario plan' and mentions 'bounded' and 'cleanup evidence', but does not define the expected structure, allowed fields, or constraints. The schema has additionalProperties: true, offering no guidance, and the description fails to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Run' and identifies the resource as a 'bounded runtime smoke scenario plan', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_breakpoint' or 'start_debug'. However, the jargon 'bounded runtime smoke scenario plan' may be unclear to an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 sibling list contains many debug and UI tools, but no analog to 'run_runtime_smoke', leaving the agent to infer context. The description does not indicate prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions.

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