Run a fixed offline eager-vs-Implicit toy benchmark to compare equivalence, serialized bytes, and timing using ephemeral memory; limited scope, no RC reproduction.
Run the fixed offline eager versus Implicit public toy benchmark. Ephemeral memory only; reports equivalence/serialized bytes/timing and limited scope, no RC reproduction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety bar is low. The description still adds real value beyond them: ephemeral-memory-only operation, the metrics reported (equivalence, serialized bytes, timing), and an explicit scope limitation ('no RC reproduction'). That extra disclosure is what lifts this to a 4.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the scope caveats. No sentence is filler, though 'no RC reproduction' is jargon that costs a little clarity without adding length.
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 are no parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing what comes back, and it does name the reported results (equivalence/serialized bytes/timing) plus the ephemeral and limited-scope constraints. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the sibling-relationship unspecified.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description sensibly adds nothing about parameters because there are none; there is no gap to compensate for.
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 (Run) and a well-defined resource (the fixed offline eager-vs-Implicit public toy benchmark), so an agent knows this is a benchmark execution tool. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling implicit_* tools, which is the only thing keeping it out of the top band.
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 implies when it applies via 'fixed offline ... public toy benchmark' and 'limited scope, no RC reproduction', which tells an agent this is a narrow reproducibility check. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings or what preconditions must hold, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.