edgegate_run_device_benchmark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses asynchronous pickup (~30s), result types (latency/memory), and admin role requirement. However, it does not explain what the function returns immediately, how to retrieve results, or behavior when devices are offline, leaving gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value: the core dispatch action, timing and result type, and prerequisites. No redundant or filler content.

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 description explains the end-to-end flow (dispatch, agent pickup, results) and prerequisites, which is sufficient for a launch operation. However, it does not mention how to access the results or handle failures, and there is no output schema to compensate, so a small gap remains.

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 75%, covering device and model_artifact_id. The description adds context about device types (Jetson, Snapdragon, gateway) and references edgegate_list_device_targets for name resolution, but does not significantly enhance understanding of parameters beyond the schema.

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 the tool's function: dispatching an ONNX benchmark to a connected device. It specifies the verb 'dispatch', the resource 'ONNX benchmark', and the target 'customer's connected devices', distinguishing it from siblings like edgegate_import_huggingface_model or edgegate_llm_compile.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to run benchmarks on a customer's device, with a note on multi-silicon support and admin role requirement. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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