list_benchmark_fixtures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the corpus contents but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format will be, or any side effects. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating operation, but this is not explicit, and no output details are given.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a concise explanation of the corpus. Every word adds meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description explains what the corpus is but does not specify what the actual list output contains (e.g., fixture IDs, names, metadata). Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is partially incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's output.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds valuable context about the corpus structure, which helps an agent understand what the list will contain, even though no parameter explanations are 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the exact resource: the ctbench matched-pair corpus. It also explains the corpus's composition (constant-time designs paired with leaky twins and a control), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_benchmark_fixture that likely retrieve individual fixtures.

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 the tool is for browsing or enumerating the available benchmark fixtures, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_benchmark_fixture or list_masking_gadgets. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, but the context of 'listing' is clear enough to infer basic usage.

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