get_app_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get performance metrics' and does not explain the time-window behavior, read-only nature, response shape, or any other runtime behavior beyond the basic operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise, though it is so brief that it sacrifices useful guidance that could be included without much additional length.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It does not specify which performance metrics are returned, what the effect of the hours parameter is, or how this tool differs from query_nrql and get_app_errors. This is insufficient for an agent expected to call it correctly in varied contexts.

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 description coverage is 100%: app_name is described as 'Name of the application' and hours as 'Number of hours to look back (default: 1)'. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond indicating the tool is about performance metrics, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('performance metrics for a specific application'), making the basic purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_app_errors, though the phrase 'performance metrics' implies a broader scope than errors.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as get_app_errors, query_nrql, or get_infrastructure_hosts. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for use.

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