Rd Benchmark

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'run' and 'throughput/consistency measurement', omitting side effects, whether it mutates backend state, or whether it requires a running backend. This is a significant transparency gap.

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?

A single sentence with no fluff, and the parenthetical adds a helpful clarification. It is adequately concise, though it largely restates the title 'Rd Benchmark'.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description leaves too much unsaid: parameter meanings, prerequisites, and what the benchmark does to the backend. The output schema may help, but the description alone is far from sufficient for correct invocation.

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% for all 5 parameters, and the description does not explain any of them. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves, so an agent cannot understand seed, pixelvae, time_limit, error_range, or max_test_size.

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 'Run the backend benchmark (throughput/consistency measurement)' clearly states the verb, resource, and what the benchmark measures. No sibling tool claims to run a benchmark, so it is unambiguous and distinguishes itself from the other rd_* 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?

The description gives no guidance on when to invoke this tool, whether the backend must already be running, or how it relates to rd_start_backend and rd_stop_backend. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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