octri_monitoring_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that results are aggregated performance data (p50/p95), but says nothing about whether it is read-only, whether it requires an active deployment/time window, rate limits, pagination, or how absent data is handled.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key metric front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than a model of concise completeness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters described, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent cannot tell the default time range, the return shape, or how to disambiguate this from the other monitoring and query tools.

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 only 50%: project_id is documented in the schema but the 'range' enum has no description anywhere. The description does not explain the default time window, the effect of omitting range, or the CLI fallback behavior for project_id, so it fails to 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?

The description names the data surfaced (slowest transactions with p50/p95 and suspected N+1 patterns) which is more informative than a bare name, but it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the action (retrieve/list) is only implied. It partially distinguishes from octri_monitoring_summary and octri_query_logs by naming its specific metric, but not explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings like octri_query_logs, octri_monitoring_summary, or octri_monitoring_releases, all of which could plausibly cover performance data. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context beyond the implied 'for the project' scope.

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