squire

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions 'clean runtimes' (isolation) and 'short-lived' (duration constraints), but omits critical behavioral details like resource limits, file cleanup after execution, blocking behavior, or what output/return format to expect.

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?

Single sentence that is appropriately front-loaded with the core action ('Run... benchmark jobs'). The trailing negative clause ('without turning...') slightly reduces efficiency but does not significantly waste space.

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 6-parameter execution tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers primary purpose and isolation model but lacks completeness regarding return values (timing metrics), cleanup behavior, or prerequisite setup requirements.

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 coverage is 100% (all 6 parameters documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific context beyond the schema, though 'small, short-lived' implicitly contextualizes the 'timeout' and 'iterations' parameters.

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 the tool runs 'small, short-lived benchmark jobs' to 'compare simple timing behavior' using 'clean runtimes'—specific verb, resource, and scope. The 'without turning Squire into a full performance platform' clause helps distinguish its limited scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like 'test'.

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?

Provides implicit constraints ('small, short-lived', 'without turning... into a full performance platform') that suggest when to use it versus heavy profiling platforms, but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance or comparison to related sibling tools like 'test'.

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