performance_monitor

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

The description gives no behavioral information. It does not state whether the tool starts monitoring, returns data, sets thresholds, or requires permissions. With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility, and it fails entirely.

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 extremely short (5 characters) but lacks necessary detail. It is under-specified rather than concisely informative, making it insufficient for a tool with three parameters and nested objects.

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 has three parameters (one a nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, or any side effects, leaving the agent without essential context.

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 description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. While the schema includes descriptions for two parameters (duration and threshold) in Chinese, the description does not explain their purpose or usage. Metrics parameter lacks a description entirely, and the high-level description does not compensate.

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 '性能监控' is a direct translation of the tool name, essentially a tautology. It does not specify what kind of performance is monitored (e.g., FPS, memory) or how it differs from sibling tools like 'animation_profiler' or 'optimize_animation_performance'.

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. There are many sibling tools with specific functions, and the description fails to indicate the appropriate context for 'performance_monitor'.

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