runtime_smoke_run_probe

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation by mentioning 'durable' and the two-step process ('validate then start'). However, it does not explain what 'durable' entails, what happens on validation failure, or other side effects. Given annotations already signal destructiveness, the description provides some but limited additional transparency.

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 that is short and front-loaded with the action. It uses no unnecessary words. However, for the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no schema descriptions), it could benefit from a structured format like bullet points to aid reading. Overall, it is concise but slightly under-specific.

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's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is far from complete. It omits details on validation criteria, return values, and parameter effects. A more comprehensive description is needed for effective agent use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description adds almost no parameter semantics. It only implies the 'probe' parameter is a single probe, but other parameters like 'name', 'phase', 'budgets', etc., remain unexplained. The tool's purpose suggests parameter context, but the description fails to provide it.

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 validates and starts a durable runtime-smoke v2 run for one probe. It specifies the action (validate then start) and the resource (run for one probe). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like runtime_smoke_start or runtime_smoke_validate_probe, which may cause confusion among the many smoke-related tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other runtime_smoke_* tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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