optimize_report_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation and the Returns block discloses a score/load-time/recommendations shape, but it never states prerequisites (e.g. that the .pbip must exist/be connected), that nothing is mutated, or any cost/latency characteristics of the analysis.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a scannable when-to-use list and short Args/Returns blocks. Minor redundancy in the Returns section given an output schema already exists, but nothing is wasted.

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 2-parameter read-only analysis tool, the description covers purpose, triggers, both arguments, and the return shape. The Returns block partially duplicates the output schema, and no sibling routing is offered, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: pbip_path is explained as the .pbip directory path and target_load_ms as desired max page load latency with a 5000 ms default. Both parameters gain meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) plus resource (PBIR report pages) and scope (visual performance bottlenecks and anti-patterns). This is distinct from UX-focused siblings like audit_report_ux_and_storytelling, though the description never names a sibling to reinforce the boundary.

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?

An explicit 'Use this tool when the user asks to...' block with two concrete triggers (slow-loading pages, excessive visual density/expensive custom visuals). It gives clear positive context but no exclusions or named alternatives against siblings such as audit_model_and_report.

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