perf_analyze_bottlenecks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It implies a read-only scan but does not state whether the tool modifies files, whether an API key is required for external analysis, what permissions are needed, or what kind of results are produced.

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 clear sentence with no filler. The core verb and target are front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, though the brevity leaves out useful context.

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 tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It omits the shape of the analysis results, whether anything is written back, how the API key is used, and what 'common anti-patterns' actually includes.

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 descriptions clarify directory and language, but the api_key parameter has no description and the tool description adds no meaning to it. The description does not explain how language or directory are used beyond the minimal schema text, so it fails to compensate for the api_key gap.

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 action ('Scan codebase') and a specific purpose ('performance anti-patterns and bottlenecks'). It is more informative than many sibling tool descriptions, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other performance-related tools like perfmon_setup or bundle_analyze_size.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preferred contexts. The only hint is implicit in the name and verb; the description does not name competing performance-analysis tools or explain when this scan is appropriate.

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