codebench_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the error condition for last_n without benchmark, the meaning of 0 ('NO runs'), and that negative values are errors. It also clarifies that omitting last_n means no limit. It does not discuss mutability or side effects, but 'list' semantics plus these explicit constraints are sufficient.

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 tightly structured with a one-line summary followed by mode explanations and a clean bullet list. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important behavioral constraint (last_n requires benchmark) is called out explicitly.

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 simple two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description covers all needed usage context: modes, parameter semantics, error conditions, and default behavior. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the description fully compensates. It explains both parameters in detail: benchmark determines whether runs or benchmark names are listed, and last_n limits to last N runs with the crucial requirements and edge cases spelled out.

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+resource pair, 'List benchmarks or runs,' and immediately breaks out the two modes: without benchmark lists benchmark names with run counts, with benchmark lists runs for that benchmark. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling codebench tools like codebench_import and codebench_query.

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 gives clear context for when to supply benchmark and when not to, plus explicit guidance that last_n requires benchmark and that omitting it is an error. It does not name alternative sibling tools for comparison, but it provides enough context that an agent can correctly decide when to use this tool.

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