get_performance_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method (POST) and that it returns internal performance timings, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects or output format. For a low-risk stats tool this is adequate, though not deeply transparent.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the endpoint and use case. It contains no filler or redundant information.

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 no-parameter statistics tool, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and when to use it. It does not describe the response structure, but no output schema exists and the nature of the returned data (timings) is already indicated. This is complete enough for the tool's low complexity.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the 100% schema coverage is trivial. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter information.

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 verb and resource: 'Get Tdarr internal performance statistics,' and clarifies the content as 'timings for server operations.' It also states the use case ('diagnose a slow server or database'), which gives functional clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling diagnostic tools like get_resource_stats or get_server_time, so it falls short of the top tier.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'used to diagnose a slow server or database.' This tells an agent when to invoke the tool. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the stated diagnostic purpose is enough to guide selection.

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