benchmark_select

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation freezes the benchmark immutably and requires a precondition, but does not detail side effects, permissions, error conditions, or return values. The description adds value but lacks comprehensive behavioral context.

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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose, precondition, and change guidance. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how to use the parameters (especially newEpoch and rationale beyond the change scenario), nor does it describe the return value or error conditions. More detail is needed for full self-containment.

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. It hints at the roles of 'newEpoch' and 'rationale' (for changing a frozen benchmark), but does not explain the other parameters (runId, benchmarkId) or provide explicit mapping. This is insufficient for four parameters.

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 verb 'freeze' and the resource 'proposed benchmark as the immutable scorecard for this cycle,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like benchmark_propose and benchmark_run.

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 specifies a precondition: 'Requires the baseline to be hash-locked first.' It also notes that changing a frozen benchmark requires a new epoch and rationale, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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