Inspect a standardized model benchmark run artifact by providing its name or ID to retrieve evaluation details and results.
Inspect a run standardized model benchmarks artifact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name/id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what side effects exist, what the output looks like, or any constraints. The verb 'Inspect' suggests read-only, but that is not explicit.
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 very short, which is concise, but the phrasing is awkward and unclear. It is not front-loaded with the most useful information because the core action is muddled.
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?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what 'inspect' returns and how it differs from status/list/compare. It does neither, leaving the agent to guess.
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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'name' has a description 'Name/id'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 'Inspect a run standardized model benchmarks artifact' is grammatically awkward and vague. It does not clearly state what 'inspect' returns or what a 'run standardized model benchmarks artifact' is. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like aibench_status or aibench_list.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus aibench_status, aibench_list, or aibench_compare. The description implies inspection of a specific artifact but does not state conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.