benchmark_get_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a nontrivial behavior: setting reveal to true unmask model identities and end the blind stage. However, it does not explain whether this is reversible or what side effects 'ending the blind stage' has beyond unmasking.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds the key behavioral caveat about reveal, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe what the returned benchmark results contain or how the blind stage context affects them, leaving some ambiguity about expected output.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both task_id and reveal. The description slightly reinforces the reveal semantic by restating the unmasking behavior, but it adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('benchmark results for a task'), making the core purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like benchmark_get_leaderboard or benchmark_get_model_stats, but the task-scoped phrasing provides enough distinctiveness.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives such as benchmark_compare_models or benchmark_get_leaderboard. The only usage hint is the reveal behavior, which addresses a parameter rather than tool selection context.

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