performance_analyze_insight

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about working with 'Performance Insight' data from trace recordings, which goes beyond the annotation. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral details like response format, error conditions, or data freshness.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and context. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with good schema coverage but no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does. However, it doesn't explain what kind of 'detailed information' is returned or how insights are structured, leaving some gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 100% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'insightName', the schema already fully documents the parameter. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about parameters beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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: 'Provides more detailed information on a specific Performance Insight' with the verb 'provides' and resource 'detailed information'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it works on insights from trace recordings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like performance_start_trace or performance_stop_trace.

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 implies usage context ('that was highlighted in the results of a trace recording'), suggesting this tool should be used after trace recording results are available. However, it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions compared to other performance-related tools.

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