video_benchmark_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It implies a diagnostic probe against the host, but says nothing about side effects, resource consumption, runtime, or whether results are persisted. For a benchmark tool that likely executes real workloads, this is a meaningful omission.

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 economical sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, so it does not earn a 5 but wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the input side is trivially complete. Still, the description leaves the agent without any guidance on when this benchmark is appropriate or what it affects on the host, which is thin for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning that needs documenting. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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 gives a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('AI-video benchmark corpus') plus the object being measured ('host capabilities'), so an agent knows this executes a benchmark. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling hyperframes_benchmark, which is the main gap between a 4 and a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to run this benchmark versus alternatives (e.g. hyperframes_benchmark or video_capabilities), no prerequisites, and no note about cost or duration. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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