Get Service Endpoint Performance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond these by explicitly listing the specific metrics retrieved (average response time, calls per minute, errors per minute) and noting the default duration. This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose and return, one for prerequisite, then a clean Args section. No extraneous information. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and easy to parse.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists the three returned metrics (average response time, calls/min, errors/min), providing sufficient context. It also includes the prerequisite step. It lacks details on error handling or edge cases (e.g., invalid sepId), but for a straightforward read-only metrics tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 descriptions for all three parameters (application, sepId, durationInMins). The description repeats these in an Args section, adding the default for durationInMins but no deeper semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, it meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 retrieves performance metrics (average response time, calls per minute, errors per minute) for a specific service endpoint. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('service endpoint performance'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like appd_get_bt_performance or appd_get_backends.

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 a clear prerequisite: 'Use appd_get_service_endpoints first to find the SEP ID.' It implies when to use this tool (after obtaining SEP ID) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent.

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