Performance Monitor

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

Annotations already provide excellent behavioral coverage (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful context about what information is retrieved (configuration, counters, thresholds, settings), which helps the agent understand the scope of data returned beyond what annotations indicate.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides usage guidance. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and no parameters, the description provides sufficient context about what information is retrieved. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the structure of returned data (e.g., whether it's a single object or array, what fields to expect).

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on what the tool retrieves.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get', 'review', 'check') and resources ('performance monitor configuration and counters', 'resource utilisation thresholds', 'monitoring settings'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on performance monitoring rather than administrators, config, licensing, etc.

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 clear usage context ('review performance baselines or check monitoring configuration'), which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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