audit_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. The verb 'Scan' reasonably implies a read-only analysis, and the examples clarify what the tool inspects. However, it does not explicitly state that the script is not modified, whether compilation is involved, or what the return value looks like. Some important behavioral context is missing.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action and resource before giving clarifying examples. There is no filler, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does and the kind of issues it finds. It would benefit from explicitly confirming that the scan is non-destructive and from indicating what kind of result is returned, but these gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 fully documents the 'path' parameter with the description 'Path to the script file', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, such as path format, file extension expectations, or whether relative paths are supported. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already covers the parameter adequately.

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 names a specific action ('Scan a script'), specifies the resource ('a script'), and states the exact focus ('potential performance issues'). It gives concrete examples (fast timers, heavy OnPlayerUpdate logic), which makes the tool's purpose clear and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like audit_script or audit_sql.

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 when to use this tool: when performance issues in a script are suspected. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as audit_script for a broader audit. The usage context is understandable but left implicit.

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