benchmark_openhuman

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

The description explicitly states the tool is read-only, which is key behavioral info. It also describes return value structure (dict with integration metrics, alignments, suggestions). No side effects or error conditions mentioned, but adequate for a simple read-only operation.

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?

Well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, a second line for behavior and output summary, and a parameter section. Could be slightly shorter, but no wasted sentences.

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 1-parameter tool with an output schema (implied by return description), the context is fairly complete. It covers purpose, read-only nature, parameter, and return type. Lacks examples or error handling info, but adequate for the complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaning for 'workspace' parameter: absolute path to local project workspace. This clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's type/required fields.

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's purpose: comparing project posture and tools against the OpenHuman framework. It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing a specific framework and output type.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_workspace or brainstorm_workspace. The description implies it's for defining local features but lacks when-not-to-use or prerequisite info.

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