Loading ToolBench
Autonomous Agent Platform with tool registry, compute infrastructure, dynamic tool generation, and workflow execution
Sidekick exposes 5 compute infrastructure tools with basic schemas and descriptions. All tools have descriptions (10-100 chars) and input schemas with type declarations, but lack depth. Parameter descriptions are present but generic ('Action to perform', 'Node identifier'). No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent, no recovery guidance, categorization, or actionable messages. Tool names follow verb_noun pattern (sidekick_compute_*) but are overly broad; sidekick_compute_nodes conflates 10+ actions (list, get, telemetry, heartbeat, revoke, maintenance, stats, create_token, list_tokens, update_token, revoke_token) into one tool, violating single-responsibility. No pagination, no result limits, no chaining IDs in responses. Security: api_key exposed as parameter in sidekick_compute_providers (pattern:secret-injection violation). No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). Baseline: 549 production tools average 194-char descriptions; Sidekick averages ~60 chars. 100% of A+ tools document return types; Sidekick documents none.
Compute infrastructure overview and initialization
Manage compute models (LLM, embedding, inference models)
Manage compute worker nodes, enrollment tokens, telemetry, and worker lifecycle
Query and manage compute placement decisions for workloads
Manage compute providers (LLM, embedding, inference endpoints)
sidekick_compute_nodes combines 10+ distinct actions (list, get, telemetry, heartbeat, revoke, maintenance, stats, create_token, list_tokens, update_token, revoke_token) into a single tool. Violates single-responsibility principle. LLM cannot infer which action to invoke without trial-and-error.
sidekick_compute_providers exposes 'api_key' as a tool parameter. Credentials must never appear in parameters, they leak into logs and traces. Use server-side secret injection via environment variables or vault.
No output schemas documented for any tool. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required fields. Baseline: 100% of A+ tools document return types.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 38 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
No error handling guidance. Tools do not indicate what to do on failure (retry, ask user, fatal). No error categorization or actionable messages. Baseline: pattern:recovery-guide requires 'User not found. Try search_users()' style recovery hints.
Parameter descriptions are generic and lack constraints. E.g., 'Action to perform' does not explain which actions are valid or when to use each. Baseline: descriptions should state format, range, and allowed values. No enums declared for constrained inputs (e.g., 'action' should be enum: [list, get, telemetry, ...]).