save_benchmark_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals side effects: full text is stored as an artifact, structured claims are stored in benchmark_claims, and diagnostics are unlocked. It does not cover overwrite behavior, permissions, or whether calling it repeatedly is idempotent.

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 short sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence adds information about storage or downstream effects.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits required parameter semantics, return behavior, and what 'unlock diagnostics' concretely means. It tells where data is written but not enough for confident invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description only partially compensates: 'report_text' is implicitly tied to 'the full text,' but session_id, request_id, and source_refs receive no explanation. An agent would have to infer the meaning of source_refs and why session_id is required.

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 states a specific action—save the agent's domain grounding report—and a notable effect, unlocking diagnostics. It also tells where data lands (artifact type agent_benchmark_report, benchmark_claims), which helps distinguish it from generic save_artifact or save_benchmark_claim, though it never names a sibling.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The only implied guidance is 'when you have a domain grounding report to save,' and no alternative is named for saving structured benchmark claims separately.

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