Get Benchmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results cover all configured benchmarks (no filtering, no subsetting), which is modest context beyond structured fields. With an output schema present, no further disclosure of return values is required.

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 short sentence with zero filler, naming the resource and scope up front. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs trimming.

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 no-parameter, read-only listing with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is not clarifying the boundary with get_benchmark_performance, which matters given how similarly named the siblings are.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The phrase 'all configured' appropriately confirms there is no filtering input to supply.

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 ('Get') and resource ('benchmarks') with a scope qualifier ('all configured'), which tells the agent this is an unfiltered listing. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_benchmark_performance, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with when looking for benchmark data.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_benchmark_performance for actual performance data. The only implied guidance is 'all configured', which hints at a metadata listing rather than a data query, but the agent must infer that.

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