tournament.evaluate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It only states 'evaluate with a judge panel' without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, authentication needs, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs comparative analysis.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no extraneous words. Every part is useful.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what the evaluation returns, how results are presented, or what 'plugin' and 'scenarios' entail, leaving significant gaps for the AI agent.

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 0% description coverage, and the description adds minimal parameter insight. It mentions 'judge panel' which relates to the 'judges' parameter but does not explain 'plugin' or 'scenarios'. The meaning of parameters beyond their names is largely opaque.

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 verb 'evaluate' and the resource 'one to four candidate models' with a 'judge panel'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like quick_test and leaderboard by specifying the use of a judge panel for evaluation.

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 usage for evaluating models with a panel but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like quick_test or leaderboard. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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