suggest_alio_benchmark

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the tool's purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as data freshness, limitations, or side effects. For a comparison tool, information about how peers are determined or whether the suggestion is real-time would be valuable.

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 concise sentences in Korean with no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the tool's function.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is minimal. It fails to explain the output format, how results are presented, or any caveats. For a suggestion tool, more context is needed to help the agent use it effectively.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds limited value beyond the schema. The schema already explains parameters like 'peers' and 'topic' in detail. The description does not provide additional semantic context for the parameters.

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 tool proposes regulations present in peer institutions but absent in the base institution, using the specific verb '제안' (propose) and resource '규정' (regulations). This distinguishes it from siblings like chain_alio_benchmark and suggest_alio_regulation_names.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase '벤치마킹 기회 탐색' (explore benchmarking opportunities) implies usage context, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate for specific scenarios.

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