cosmergon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions what the report includes but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, potential rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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, efficient sentence that lists the included metrics. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output format, and usage context. For a tool that generates a report, more information on what the report looks like or how to interpret it would be beneficial.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, providing details on 'days' as the benchmark period. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Generate a benchmark report comparing your agent against all other agents' with specific metrics listed (energy efficiency, territorial expansion, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('benchmark report'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cosmergon_act, cosmergon_info, or cosmergon_observe.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (cosmergon_act, cosmergon_info, cosmergon_observe). The description implies usage for benchmarking purposes but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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