检查远程文件下载速度

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral trait that multiple calls are required to compute a rate, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not describe return values or side effects, but given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every word adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 has 3 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the role of expected_bytes or the return value semantics (partially mitigated by the output schema). The description lacks enough context for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without ambiguity about the parameters.

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 for the lack of parameter meaning. It does not explain alias, remote_path, or expected_bytes. The overall purpose hints that remote_path is a file path, but no parameter-specific guidance is given, leaving the agent to guess how expected_bytes should be used.

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 states that the tool samples remote file size and that at least two calls are needed to calculate growth rate, which clearly identifies the verb (sample) and resource (remote file). The title additionally clarifies that this is for checking download speed, but the description itself does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like ssh_download, so it lacks some differentiation.

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 important usage guidance: 'call at least twice to calculate growth rate', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., ssh_download) or mention any exclusions. The context of measuring speed is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with other ssh tools.

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