unreal_performance_job

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing that it reports 'incomplete or changed-state outcomes' – a non-obvious behavioral trait about what state information is returned. This adds context the annotations do not provide.

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 13-word sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, containing no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the read-only nature and the kind of data returned. However, it does not explain job_id semantics or when to call the tool, so an agent may not know what value to pass. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0% for job_id, and the description does not explain what job_id refers to, its format, or how to obtain it. The agent can only guess from the tool name that it identifies a performance job, which is a serious gap for the only parameter.

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 states a specific action ('Read') and a resource ('timing progress and scope'), and adds detail about outcome states. It does not explicitly name 'performance job' or differentiate from siblings like unreal_performance_start or unreal_performance_compare, but it is not tautological and conveys the core purpose.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to start a job first) or when to prefer this over unreal_performance_compare or unreal_performance_cancel. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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