Benchmarks List

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds that results are scoped to benchmarks 'discovered from installed Cookbook source', which is useful context about the data origin, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether an empty result is possible.

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 efficient sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to document. The description conveys what is listed and where it comes from, leaving only minor gaps such as result ordering or scope limits.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are required; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description correctly implies no input filtering is needed.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (benchmark names) with a qualifier about origin (discovered from installed Cookbook source). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling recipes_list, which enumerates recipes rather than benchmarks.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description (use it to enumerate available benchmarks), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent can infer the intent but receives no routing guidance versus siblings like recipes_list.

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