run_elite_eval_suite

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that no external model calls are made and lists the metrics, but it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic 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?

The description consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence names the tool's action, and the second lists the metrics. No extraneous information is present.

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 the tool has a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description adequately introduces its purpose and outcomes. However, it lacks any guidance on parameter usage, which is a gap for a simple tool.

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?

There is no explanation of the 'scope' parameter in the description. Although it has a default value of 'smoke', the description does not clarify what values are accepted or what 'smoke' means. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description fails to compensate.

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 runs a lightweight local Elite eval suite and lists the specific metrics scored. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'no external model calls' and 'lightweight local' nature.

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 implies the tool is for quick, local evaluations without external calls, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like smoke_test_gate or elite_outcome_scorecard. No caveats or exclusions are provided.

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