optimize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it measures, applies switches that help, preserves visuals, writes game-runtime.json, and runs the final project test. Gaps remain on whether switch changes persist across sessions, how writes are scoped, and what is reported back, so it is solid but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 the outcome ('Speeds up the open page'), and each clause carries information. The first sentence is long and dense but no clause is filler.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two params, the description covers the pipeline, side effects (file write, switch application), visual-invariance guarantee, and final test step. It could say more about what results are surfaced after running, but it is largely sufficient.

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 50%: the `game` param is documented in-schema and the description reinforces that it targets the open page. The `switches` enum values (resolution, defaults, instancing, lod, dispose) are never explained in either schema or description; 'tries the @paprika3d/three-runtime switches' only hints at meaning, so the description doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Speeds up the open page') and enumerates the concrete actions: measuring frame time, trying three-runtime switches, writing game-runtime.json, and running test. It implicitly separates itself from perf ('no perf needed first') and test, though it never crisply names a sibling as the alternative to use instead.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions – 'a frame a reply reports over budget, or a user who asks about performance' – and clarifies the relationship to perf. It stops short of stating when *not* to use it or naming an alternative tool, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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