benchmark_freeze_maker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool freezes a benchmark, defaults benchPartition to gate, and makes worker benchmark_propose a no-op. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or error conditions, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for core understanding.

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 is concise at two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads key information (purpose and usage context). While it could benefit from clearer structure, it is efficient and direct.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description leaves gaps. It does not explain what 'freeze' means in terms of lifecycle, return value, or error handling. It covers the main intent but lacks completeness for full contextual understanding.

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 low (40%). The description adds meaning only for benchPartition (defaults to gate). It provides no additional information for parameters like runId, newEpoch, benchmark, or rationale, which are left to the schema descriptions alone.

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: 'freeze a benchmark directly (benchSource:maker) without worker benchmark_propose'. It specifies the resource (benchmark) and action (freeze), and differentiates from sibling tool benchmark_propose by indicating it is for maker-only direct freezing.

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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool ('Bench-maker only' and 'without worker benchmark_propose') and what happens when it is used ('Worker benchmark_propose becomes a no-op'). It also specifies the default behavior for benchPartition, providing clear context for usage vs alternatives.

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