start_test

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it starts a test but does not mention side effects (e.g., session creation, progress reset), prerequisites, or what the response contains—critical gaps for a state-changing action.

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, front-loaded sentence with the core action stated first. The long list of test types is necessary but creates a minor readability burden; overall, every element 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the test type enumeration. However, it omits behavioral context (e.g., whether the test starts immediately, how the agent should proceed) and does not clarify return behavior, leaving the agent partially in the dark.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100% with an enum, the description adds semantic value by mapping each enum value to a human-readable Chinese explanation (e.g., MBTI simplified, Enneagram deep version). This goes beyond the bare schema definition, helping the agent select the correct test type.

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 the specific verb 'start' and clearly identifies the resource (personality test), while listing all available test types. This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_tests, answer_question, get_progress, and calculate_result, which serve other stages of the workflow.

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 usage: if you want to begin a personality test, this is the tool to use. However, it provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names.

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