benchmark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the compilation-once-then-multiple-runs behavior and the output metrics. However, it does not describe error handling (e.g., compilation failure) or the exact format of the report, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the core workflow, default behavior, and use case. No filler or redundant information. Front-loaded with the key action (compile once, run N times).

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?

The tool is fairly simple: compile, run, report. The description covers the main workflow and output. However, it lacks details on error behavior (compile errors) and the exact structure of the reported numbers. With no output schema, more explicit output description would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameter descriptions are present. The description adds only a default for runs (already in schema) and mentions filename normalization (also in schema). No additional semantic value 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 compiles once, runs N times, and reports min/max/avg execution time. The verb 'benchmark' is specific to repeated timing, and the description distinguishes it from siblings like compile_and_run by emphasizing multiple runs and statistics.

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 explicitly says 'Useful for comparing algorithm variants on the real DOS runtime,' which gives clear guidance on when to use it. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use, but the context with siblings makes the use case sufficiently clear.

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