List Performance Reviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that include_answers/form_data can significantly increase response time and advises combining with filters, which is a meaningful non-obvious trait. It does not detail security/permissions, but as a read operation, the performance warning adds substantial transparency.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no fluff. Effectively communicates core function and key caveat in minimal space.

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?

Given 15 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of the returned data (status, template, dates) and flags performance considerations. It leaves detailed parameter behavior to the schema, which is complete, so it is adequately complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 15 parameters, meeting the baseline. The description's mention of slow response for answers is already present in the schema's include_answers field, so it adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it retrieves performance review cycles with status, template, and date fields, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'list_reviews', which could be similar, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Provides usage context by warning that including answers significantly increases response time and recommends combining with filters, which guides effective use. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives like list_reviews, nor does it mention exclusions or conditions.

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