benchmark_select

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the operation freezes the benchmark (making it immutable), requires a prior hash-lock, and outlines the effort needed to change. No contradictions with annotations as none are provided.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds essential constraints. Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core intent and key constraints but lacks parameter details and success/failure behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description only mentions 'baseline' and 'new epoch + rationale' but does not map them to runId, benchmarkId, newEpoch, or rationale. This leaves the agent with insufficient understanding of each parameter's role.

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 action 'Freeze ONE proposed benchmark as the immutable scorecard for this cycle', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like benchmark_propose and benchmark_freeze_maker by implying the tool is for finalizing after proposal.

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 provides a prerequisite ('Requires the baseline to be hash-locked first') and consequence ('Changing a frozen benchmark needs a new epoch + rationale'), but does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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