get_benchmark

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool preserves markers indicating dirty transcriptions and advises verification, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authorization, rate limits, or return format.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences, 30 words, no redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action and includes a critical warning efficiently.

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 output schema, the description hints at return contents (benchmarks with possible markers) but does not explain structure or values. Adequate for a simple retrieval tool but could be more comprehensive.

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% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying default behavior for cluster ('o de todos si no se especifica'), but the filtering by metric is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it returns benchmarks of a cluster or all clusters if unspecified, with optional metric filtering. It specifies the resource and action but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though the action is distinct.

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?

Describes when to use (getting benchmarks, specifying cluster or all) and optional filtering, but no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The warning about dirty markers provides some usage context.

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