benchmark_libraries

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavior. It describes normalizing metrics and producing output but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only), performance, or required state (e.g., libraries must be loaded). Basic transparency is present but could be enhanced.

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 that is highly efficient and front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose, no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the operation and output clearly. Lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., libraries need to be loaded via load_library) but is otherwise 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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by listing the metrics compared (properties, events, etc.), but this does not directly elaborate on the parameters themselves. No additional parameter-level details beyond schema.

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 clearly states it compares web component libraries, normalizes metrics, and produces a weighted score and markdown table. The verb 'compares' and resource 'web component libraries' are specific, and the tool is distinct from sibling tools like check_* or analyze_* which focus on individual aspects.

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?

Description implies usage for comparing libraries but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_library or check_* tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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