bench_summary

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates it reads files from OUT_DIR and produces a table, implying no side effects, but doesn't disclose permissions, error conditions, or if any modifications occur. Reasonable for a summary tool but could be more 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?

Two sentences: first defines the action, second provides use case and output example. No wasted words, front-loaded.

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 one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (exists but not shown), the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output. Could specify that it is read-only and what 'artefact' means.

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?

Only one parameter (out_dir) with default. Description links it to the directory of artefacts ('every bench artefact in OUT_DIR'), adding meaning beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage.

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?

Description clearly states it aggregates bench artefacts into a summary table, listing columns. Distinct from sibling tools that run benchmarks (bench_quick_invite, bench_quick_register).

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful at the end of a tuning run' and shows what the output contains, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives.

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