analyze_route_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the high-level purpose and output statistic type. It does not disclose whether authentication is required (despite username/password/token params), whether the operation is read-only, how results are structured, or any limitations such as the max 100 requests implied by the 'all' parameter.

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 sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. It is concise, though it trades away useful detail; still, for the dimension of conciseness and structure, it is efficient and appropriately sized for a short summary.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many performance-related sibling tools—the description is far too sparse to be complete. It does not explain the return format, how parameters like groupBy or since interact, authentication expectations, or what qualifies as 'route performance', leaving significant gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters. The description adds minimal context, such as 'percentile statistics' suggesting why count and minSamples matter, but it does not meaningfully expand on parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Analyze') and resource ('route performance'), and adds a specific output characteristic ('with percentile statistics') that distinguishes it somewhat from generic performance tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_performance_summary or analyze_slow_queries, so it is clear but not fully sibling-aware.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_slow_queries, get_performance_summary, or get_route_details. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context hints despite the large sibling list and 11 parameters, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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