run_benchmark

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Run benchmark comparing all implementations' and does not disclose whether results are stored, whether existing registrations are required, whether output validation is performed, or what side effects occur.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. It wastes no words, though it arguably under-specifies the tool's behavior, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.

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 an execution tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not mention what the benchmark returns, how results are retrieved (e.g., via get_results), whether registrations are prerequisite, or how to handle failures. An agent could invoke it but would be guessing about the outcome.

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 parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about timeoutMs, warmupRuns, measurementRuns, or validateOutput, but it does not need to since the schema handles this; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Run benchmark') and a specific resource ('all implementations of an algorithm'), making it clear this tool targets a single algorithm's implementations. This also differentiates it from siblings like benchmark_all (likely broader) and list_algorithms/get_results (non-execution tools).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as benchmark_all, auto_benchmark, or query_performance. The description implies a usage context but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling.

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