atlas_performance_doctor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool analyzes and provides specific code fixes with estimated improvement percentages, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, whether it modifies code, or any limitations/side effects, leaving some gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the tool's purpose and key capabilities without unnecessary fluff. Every part adds value, and it is easy to parse.

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?

The description summarizes the tool's output (specific code fixes with improvement percentages), which is important since there is no output schema. It provides enough context for a straightforward analyzer, though it could go deeper into return structure or edge cases. Overall, it is reasonably complete given the schema coverage.

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 already documents all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain parameter details. The description's reference to React/Vue and issue types adds some context but does not go beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool is a frontend performance analyzer with a specific verb 'detects' and lists concrete issue types (re-render issues, bundle bloat, memory leaks). It also mentions providing code fixes with improvement percentages, giving a clear sense of the tool's scope and output.

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?

The description implies the tool is for frontend performance analysis, which is enough to suggest when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools like atlas_profiler or atlas_optimize, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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