get_runtime_benchmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description's unique contribution is 'not separately rate-limited,' which adds useful operational context, and it reaffirms non-destructiveness without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage trigger, and behavioral caveat. The content enumeration is slightly long but serves sibling differentiation; it is close to the zero-waste ideal but not as tight as a two-sentence definition.

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 zero-input read-only catalog tool, the description covers when to call, what it returns (contents enumerated), and safety/rate-limit behavior. The only gap is the absence of an output schema combined with no stated response structure, so the return format is inferred rather than specified.

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, there is nothing for the input schema to document, so the baseline 4 applies. The description compensates further by enumerating what the catalog contains, effectively previewing the enumerated semantics an agent can expect.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the authenticated Algenta runtime benchmark catalog') and enumerates the catalog's contents (benchmark classes, evidence paths, quality gates, SLO budgets, compiled artifacts, module linkage). This distinguishes it from sibling runtime tools like get_runtime_manifest, get_runtime_modules, and get_runtime_release_validation without needing to open their schemas.

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' trigger tied to concrete needs (benchmark classes, SLO budgets, module benchmark linkage) before reasoning about runtime performance claims. However, it names no sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use exclusions, leaving the routing decision partially to the agent.

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