benchmark_build

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

The description explains that the tool compares to distributions of real high-end builds, reports scaling levers, and is non-destructive (calibration check only). It sets expectations about what the tool does and does not do.

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 moderately long but well-structured, with a clear core statement followed by details and a caution. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 parameters and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, behavior, and output semantics. It explains what the tool returns (which levers to scale) and provides context for interpretation.

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 no parameters, so description does not need to add parameter details. It implicitly uses the active build context, which is clear from the description.

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 calibrates the active build against a verified reference set, comparing DPS/EHP and reporting scaling levers. It distinguishes this from copying references and from sibling tools like rank_levers and build_advice.

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 states when to use this tool (calibration check) and when not to (not a license to copy). It directs to use rank_levers if a number is low, providing clear alternatives.

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