codebench_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses uniqueness constraints per row/metric pair, refusal of NaN/Infinity, default date behavior, and the either/or requirement for csv_data/json_data. It does not state whether imports append to or replace existing data, which is a relevant mutation behavior.

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 main behavior and input conventions are front-loaded before the parameter list, and every argument earns its place. It is slightly long, but the format specifications and constraints justify the length.

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 description is quite complete for a 6-parameter import tool, especially since an output schema exists and return values need not be explained. The notable gap is behavior when both csv_data and json_data are supplied, and whether duplicate row/metric pairs are rejected against pre-existing data or only within the import.

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%, and the description compensates fully by explaining every parameter: benchmark with an example, csv_data/json_data with structural conventions, date default, tags example, and meta example. It also clarifies the mutual-exclusion constraint that the schema alone would not imply.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Import benchmark results from CSV or JSON'), immediately distinguishing this import tool from query/list/delete siblings. It also clearly states the supported data formats, making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 clearly conveys it is for importing benchmark data and not for reading or mutating other entities, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it. The 'CSV or JSON' format guidance gives the agent a clear context for invocation.

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