List evaluation benches

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that this is 'Free local read (no API calls, no network)', which reinforces the local/no-cost behavior and is useful context. It doesn't explain output structure, but an output schema exists, so that burden is offloaded.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the read nature and scope, then the routing instruction. No wasted text.

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?

With an output schema present and zero params, the description provides everything needed: what it does, that it's safe/local, and exactly when to call it relative to siblings.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed and explains the output fields (IDs and descriptions) that callers will consume.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Lists every registered evaluation bench and its scenarios') plus explicit return contents (IDs and descriptions). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming tournament_evaluate and tournament_quick_test as the consumers of its output.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this first to discover valid plugin and scenario IDs before calling tournament_evaluate or tournament_quick_test.' This gives a clear when-to-use and names the alternatives it feeds.

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