get_runtime_benchmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds 'Read-only and non-destructive; not separately rate-limited' and notes authentication, which are behavioral details not present in annotations. No contradiction.

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 compact: a single purpose statement, a use-case list, and a sibling-routing sentence. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical information (what it returns, when to use) is front-loaded.

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 parameterless catalog fetch with annotations covering safety, the description explains what content is returned and how it differs from siblings. It lacks an explicit return-format statement, but the enumerated content types partially compensate. Given no output schema, it's sufficiently complete.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to add anything; baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't mention parameters but none exist.

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 names a specific resource ('the authenticated Algenta runtime benchmark catalog') and enumerates the concrete content it returns (benchmark classes, evidence paths, quality gates, SLO budgets, compiled artifacts, module linkage). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by stating this is the performance-evidence surface versus module correctness tools.

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 an explicit 'Use this when...' list covering all relevant use cases (benchmark classes, evidence paths, quality gates, SLO budgets, artifacts, linkage). It also names three sibling alternatives for module correctness, giving clear when-not guidance.

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