List benchmark summaries for a commit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does describe the summary field as a JSON blob with compile-time and cycle-count metrics, and mentions pagination. But it leaves out response shape, ordering, error behavior, rate limits, and authentication requirements.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff: the main verb and resource are first, the return detail comes second, and filters/pagination finish. It is adequately sized, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 good for a 7-param, read-only listing operation, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so it should provide more context about the response structure beyond the summary field. It also lacks guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings, leaving part of the decision to the agent.

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 description does not need to add much. It does group the filter options meaningfully (exact test name, substring, cloud/context) but the individual parameters are already well documented in the schema. No genuinely new parameter-level semantics are introduced.

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 exact action: listing compiler benchmark summary rows for a commit short-sha. It also describes the output content, filters, and pagination, which makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_recent_commits or URL builders.

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?

It communicates that the tool is for listing rows for a given commit and optionally filtering, which implies its usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to reach for this tool versus get_summary or compare_commits, and no alternatives are named.

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