query_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions "automatic benchmark" which hints that invoking the tool may run benchmarks, but it does not disclose potential side effects, whether cached results are used, whether forceRefresh writes new results, performance costs, or what the summary contains.

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 short and free of fluff, which is positive, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. It is a single vague phrase that omits important details without earning its brevity through precise wording.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, three parameters, and many related sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify the return value, the difference from run_benchmark/get_results, or whether automatic benchmarking creates side effects, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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 three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but that is acceptable because the schema is fully self-describing; 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 says "Query performance analysis with automatic benchmark and summary," which gives a general sense that the tool analyzes performance and runs benchmarks, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource action. It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like run_benchmark, auto_benchmark, or get_results, all of which could plausibly perform similar work.

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 about when to use query_performance versus the many related tools such as run_benchmark, benchmark_all, auto_benchmark, or get_results. The schema's query parameter implies it is for asking performance questions about algorithms, but the description itself does not state usage context or exclusions.

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