get_performance_monitors

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool gets values, but does not specify the return format, whether data is live or snapshot, permission requirements, or side effects. The list of categories adds some context but leaves significant 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 immediately conveys the verb and resource. It is concise, containing no extraneous words, and fits within standard display limits.

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 getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits details about the return data structure, whether the tool returns live or cumulative values, and how to interpret the listed categories. More context would help an agent use the tool effectively.

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 100%, with the single 'monitors' parameter fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 retrieves all performance monitor values, listing specific categories (FPS, memory, physics, rendering, navigation). This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools by focusing on performance monitors rather than other data types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name suggests it is for general performance monitoring, there is no explicit mention of when to use it over more specific getters like get_rendering_info or get_physics_settings, nor any mention of prerequisites or contexts.

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