get_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation ('Read') and that the stats are live, and it lists the scope of metrics. It does not mention session prerequisites (e.g., Studio connection or active playtest), but for a simple read-only diagnostic tool this is largely sufficient.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and metrics, followed by the diagnostic use case. Every phrase earns its place; there is no redundant or filler text.

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 low complexity, zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, lists the metrics, and gives a practical use case. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit session prerequisites or return-format details, but the listed metrics imply the output.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so parameter semantics baseline is 4 per the rules. The description does not need to explain any input arguments, and it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on non-existent inputs.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('live Studio performance stats'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned (FPS, frame time, physics, contacts, memory). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all siblings, none of which report performance data.

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?

It gives a clear diagnostic context — 'Diagnose weak laptop vs real bugs' — which tells an agent when this tool is useful. However, it does not state explicit exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives (e.g., when not to use it, or whether it requires an active playtest).

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