performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description says nothing about whether this is non-mutating, whether it requires a connected/running session, or how expensive the call is; it only enumerates returned fields, which is closer to output documentation than 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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the metric list is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though the list format could be marginally tightened.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic getter with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned metrics, which is the main thing an agent needs. It lacks any note on the return format or when the data is unavailable, but it is largely complete for this tool's complexity.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The empty schema is consistent with the description, which implies a no-argument fetch.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates the exact metrics returned (FPS, draw calls, triangle count, object count, scene dimensions), which rescues the vague tool name 'performance'. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like get_screen_state or scene_graph, though it does not explicitly name how it differs from them.

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 call this tool versus alternatives such as screenshot, scene_graph, or get_screen_state, nor any stated preconditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the metric list.

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