compute_metrics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'pure, offline' implying no side effects or network access, which adds some context. However, it does not disclose required permissions, data handling, or edge cases. With no annotations, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information (metrics list, offline nature). It is concise, though some might argue it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 that the tool has six parameters with no descriptions, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, expected task values, and return format. It only mentions preds and refs, leaving significant gaps. The presence of an output schema reduces some burden, but the description is still incomplete.

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%, yet the description does not explain any parameter beyond mentioning 'preds and refs' in the tool's purpose. The schema shows six parameters including nll, loss, logprobs, and task, but none are described. The description adds no value for parameter semantics.

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 explicitly states the tool computes specific metrics (BLEU, ROUGE-1/2/L, perplexity, accuracy, macro-F1) from preds and refs, and characterizes it as 'pure, offline', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling evaluation and reporting 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 like evaluate_on_validation_set or compare_to_baseline. It only mentions 'offline' but does not set conditions or exclusions.

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