auto_benchmark

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 only says 'Automatically run benchmarks' without stating side effects, caching behavior, resource implications, or whether prior registration is required. The forceRefresh parameter hints at caching, but the description does not elaborate.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler words, and it front-loads the core action ('Automatically run benchmarks'). It is as short as possible, though it sacrifices necessary contextual details.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that overlap in function, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it writes results to storage, or how it relates to auto_detect_algorithms. An agent cannot fully judge consequences or prerequisites from this text alone.

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 already documents both parameters clearly: algorithmIds ('empty = all') and forceRefresh ('Force refresh even if cached results exist'). With 100% schema description coverage, the tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Automatically run benchmarks') and a resource scope ('detected or registered algorithms'), so an agent can tell it is about running benchmarks. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like run_benchmark or benchmark_all, so it is clear but not fully distinctive.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as run_benchmark or benchmark_all. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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