game_performance

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

Annotations provide no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description merely states it 'get performance metrics', but does not disclose whether this is a snapshot, continuous monitoring, if it affects game state, or requires the game to be running. No behavioral traits beyond the basic action are revealed.

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?

A single concise sentence that includes examples. No wasted words; front-loaded with the key action and resource. Perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., format, structure, or how to interpret the metrics). For a tool that produces output, this is a critical gap, especially since there is no output schema to rely on.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no parameters to describe). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter info. It meets the standard.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'performance metrics' with concrete examples (FPS, memory, draw calls), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like game_os_info or game_get_errors.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or situations where other tools (e.g., game_get_logs, game_debug_draw) would be more appropriate.

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