Benchmark bridge

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no safety disclosure is required from the description. The description adds useful details about the bounded nature and specific metrics, but it does not disclose potential runtime impact or result format. This is adequate given the annotations but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It immediately states the action and target, maximizing information density while staying concise.

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?

There is no output schema and the description does not mention return values or how results are reported. Combined with sparse parameter explanations and no usage context, the description leaves significant gaps for a tool with 4 parameters, even though annotations cover safety.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (clientId has a description). The description does not explain scanRoot, scanLimit, or iterations, leaving the agent to rely on defaults and constraints. The phrase 'bounded traversal throughput' hints at scanLimit but does not explicitly describe parameter behavior, failing to compensate for the low 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 uses the specific verb 'Measure' and identifies the resource as 'local bridge latency and bounded client-side instance traversal throughput'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like profile_runtime, which focuses on runtime profiling, making the tool's unique purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no mention of when to use this tool or any alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer its use solely from the name 'benchmark' and the vague context of the description.

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