rybbit_get_performance_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and metrics, but does not disclose what the response structure looks like, whether date ranges are required, how data is aggregated, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and the specific metrics. There is no wasted wording or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description should explain the return values and default behavior. It falls short by only naming the metrics, without explaining what the overview output contains, how percentiles are presented, or how date/filter parameters affect the result. This leaves significant contextual gaps.

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 100%, meaning all 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning to the parameters; it only lists output metrics. Therefore, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Core Web Vitals and performance metrics overview') plus specific metrics (LCP, CLS, INP, FCP, TTFB percentiles). This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like rybbit_get_performance_timeseries and rybbit_get_performance_by_dimension by emphasizing 'overview'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where one of the sibling performance tools would be more appropriate. The word 'overview' implies a summary use case, but explicit guidance is absent.

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