run_ab_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the core behavior (evaluate both versions, return winner) but does not disclose whether results are persisted, whether a win auto-promotes the candidate or requires a separate promote_ab call, whether the run is synchronous or long-running, or what side effects repeated runs have. For a stateful experiment tool, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the verb comes first, the comparison subject is explicit, and the output is stated. There is zero padding and every clause 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?

With 5 parameters including workflow state (previous_wins, promote_threshold), no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain how the returned winner interacts with the promotion threshold, what the return value actually contains, or what follow-up action (e.g., promote_ab) the agent should take — leaving the full call flow ambiguous.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces current/candidate and golden-set (matching eval_set) but adds no semantics beyond the schema for previous_wins or promote_threshold, which carry the promotion-workflow meaning. This is adequate only because the schema already documents every parameter.

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 a specific verb (发起/launch) and resource (A/B comparison of current vs candidate on golden-set) and states the outcome (返回胜出方/return the winner). This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like evaluate or eval_suite, which sound like single-version evaluation, and from promote_ab, which likely handles the promotion step.

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?

Usage context is implied: you run this when you have two Agent versions to compare head-to-head on a golden-set. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it, nor does it mention that promote_ab exists as the follow-up step for promoting the winner — the agent must infer the workflow boundary from sibling names.

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