run_reference_checker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states that the tool runs a baseline, with no mention of outputs, side effects, duration, or required permissions. This is completely silent on behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the action and scope, making it highly concise and readable.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not clarify what the tool returns or what happens after execution. Given that the tool operates on a 'whole benchmark corpus,' the description omits critical context about results, logging, or error handling, making it incomplete.

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 schema has zero parameters, so semantic explanation of parameters is not needed. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies; however, no additional context about implicit inputs (like configuration) is given, preventing a higher score.

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 ('Run') with a clear resource ('bundled cone-of-influence baseline') and scope ('whole benchmark corpus'). This distinctly identifies the tool's action and differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on specific security checks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_constant_time or find_leak. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios that would favor this baseline run.

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