electron_audit_performance

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

Annotations confirm readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive. Description adds value by listing the 8 anti-patterns audited, and mentions 'returns specific fixes', which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Single sentence lists all 8 anti-patterns concisely with no wasted words. Structure is front-loaded with purpose and scope.

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 simple audit tool with no output schema, description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. Lacks detail on output format but sufficient given tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. Description does not add new meaning to parameters but groups them implicitly as code to analyze for anti-patterns. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states specific verb (Analyze) and resource (Electron app code for 8 official performance anti-patterns). Lists all anti-patterns, distinguishing it from security, deprecated APIs, and other sibling tools.

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?

Description implies use for performance audit by naming specific anti-patterns but does not explicitly state when to use or exclude alternatives. Context signals and sibling names provide additional differentiation.

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