benchmark_all

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic detection, running benchmarks, and returning formatted results, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it caches or modifies state, whether benchmark execution has side effects, or what the formatted results look like. The forceRefresh parameter hints at caching, but the description does not acknowledge it.

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 that front-loads the core behavior: detection, benchmarking, and formatted results. The 'ONE-CLICK BENCHMARK' label adds useful positioning without wasting words.

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?

The tool has three optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several closely related sibling tools, so the description needs to offer more context. It does not clarify what 'formatted results' means, which algorithms are detected, how caching and forceRefresh behave, or how this tool differs from auto_benchmark and auto_detect_algorithms.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The description's phrase 'all algorithms' loosely aligns with the optional filePath and directories parameters, but it does not explain how they interact or refine the behavior.

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 a specific verb-resource combination: automatically detects algorithms, runs benchmarks, and returns formatted results. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like auto_detect_algorithms, run_benchmark, and auto_benchmark, which all overlap in function.

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 'ONE-CLICK BENCHMARK' tag and 'automatically detect all algorithms' phrase imply this is the all-in-one convenience tool, which gives some usage context. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, nor any mention of alternatives or exclusions.

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