analyze_performance

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the 'polygon budget' context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether it requires a selected object, computes in real-time, or returns aggregate stats. With annotations partly covering safety, this is marginally sufficient.

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 sentence with no filler, directly stating the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and skips unnecessary details, achieving maximum conciseness with reasonable clarity.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any explanation of how the polygon budget is calculated, what might affect the report, or how to interpret unusual results. An output schema likely covers the return format, but the description could still benefit from a sentence on prerequisites or expected behavior.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the input (none). The description adds semantic context about what the report covers, which is helpful even though there are no parameters to explain.

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 'Laporan anggaran poligon scene' (scene polygon budget report) clearly communicates the tool's output: a report on polygon budget/performance. It goes beyond the tool name, specifying the focus area, which helps distinguish it from broader tools like get_scene_info or mesh_analysis.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include mesh_analysis, get_scene_info, and scene_summary, but the description does not explain how analyze_performance differs or when it should be preferred.

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