neuron_waterfall

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool computes and how the output is organized, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires the page to be fully loaded, or what happens if no resource timing data is available. The read-only nature is strongly implied, but not stated.

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?

Two efficient sentences front-load the core purpose and then add relevant analytical detail. There is no redundant language or repetition of schema information, and every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's value.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and single parameter, the description provides a solid conceptual model of the output: per-resource phases, ordering, and analytical highlights. There is no output schema, but the description is detailed enough for an agent to know what to expect, though it could mention edge cases or prerequisites.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter (tabId), and the schema already explains it as 'Chrome tab ID'. The tool description does not add further detail about the parameter, though the 'page' wording subtly reinforces that tabId refers to a loaded page. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 specific resource (network timing waterfall) and a clear function: breaking down DNS, TCP, TLS, TTFB, and download timing per resource, ordered by start time. It identifies the render-blocking path and slowest resources, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like neuron_get_requests or neuron_export_har, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool — when a per-resource network timing breakdown is needed — but it does not state when not to use it or provide alternatives such as neuron_perf_snapshot or neuron_export_har. The usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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