trigger_benchmark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the requirement for an authenticated gh CLI and the fallback to manual instructions, but omits details about what happens after dispatch (e.g., async behavior, response, error handling). Some behavioral insight is provided, but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the tool's primary function. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description is not required to explain return values. However, for a workflow trigger tool, it lacks information about expected outcomes (e.g., job URL, status) and how it fits into the pipeline with sibling tools (e.g., use after trigger). It is adequate but not fully complete for an AI agent's decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: both parameters have descriptions. The tool's description adds context about the workflow (e.g., benchmark matrix) but does not enhance understanding of the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 action (trigger), the specific workflow (arm-bench with benchmark matrix), and the target (GitHub repo via workflow_dispatch). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on triggering a workflow, which is unique among them.

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 mentions a prerequisite (authenticated gh CLI) and a fallback (manual instructions), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings. The usage context is implied by the tool's purpose, but no exclusion criteria or alternative selection guidance is provided.

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