analyze_benchmark

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, which align with 'store' and repeated safe execution. The description adds the transformational aspect ('normalize') and persistence ('store the typed artifact'), but does not disclose details like auto-detection of source_format, potential overwrites, or error behavior.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'Normalize' and includes key qualifiers ('supported', 'typed') that add value without unnecessary length.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema, but the description provides minimal context. It omits parameter semantics, behavior of format detection, and when to use the tool. Although annotations and output schema reduce the burden, the description remains incomplete for effective 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% and the description mentions no parameters. It fails to add meaning to 'path', 'source_format', or 'benchmark_name', and does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 a specific verb ('Normalize') and resource ('supported benchmark JSON file'), and the outcome ('store the typed artifact'). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_profile (profile) and compare_benchmarks (comparison), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage when a benchmark JSON file needs normalization, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_profile or collect_profile. There are no exclusions or conditions stated.

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