benchmark.compare_ab.v1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool writes a file to the filesystem, but does not disclose whether 'write_report=true' is required, whether the write overwrites existing content, what failure modes exist (e.g., insufficient permissions), or the format/structure of the generated summary. A file-writing tool with zero annotation coverage should disclose more behavior.

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?

Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded with the verb+action. Could arguably add a bit of detail (report format or side effects), but as a compact statement of intent it is efficient and complete for its length.

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?

The tool has a 5-parameter schema with 2 required arrays, 3 optional/defaulted params, a writable boolean, and a nested object structure in the arrays. There is an output schema present, so return-value explanation isn't required. However, with zero annotation coverage and a file-write side effect, the description remains thinner than warranted—it doesn't state what the benchmark summary contains, how statistics are computed, or any behavior around the output_path/write_report flags.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description clarifies the semantic relationship between the two required run arrays (prompt-only vs MCP comparison) and the report-writing behavior. However, it does not individually explain what 'manual_fixes', 'retries', and 'duration_ms' measure—though the schema field names are fairly self-explanatory, and the description covers the core intent of the two large array params and the output file behavior.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Compare prompt-only vs MCP runs and write benchmark-summary.md'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from content/project/seo/w3c siblings by situating it in the benchmark domain. The comparison and file-write outcomes are both explicit.

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 when-to-use context ('for developer demos') but provides no explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool or what alternatives exist among the benchmark-adjacent siblings. The sibling set has no comparable benchmark tool, so differentiation isn't required, but no exclusion criteria or prerequisite steps (e.g., requiring completed run logs) are stated.

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