find_slow_templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions OAuth2 authentication, which is a useful context, but it omits what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, how pagination or filtering works, or any side effects. The description is too sparse for an analysis tool with 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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and the authentication requirement. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with the main action, it is a model of conciseness.

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?

Despite the tool having no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of templates with render times). It also ignores the optional pagePath parameter and how it interacts with the threshold. Given the presence of related sibling tools, this description lacks sufficient context for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope and output.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value by mentioning the threshold concept, but it does not elaborate on pagePath or thresholdMs beyond what the schema already states. The schema itself documents all parameters adequately, so no extra compensation is required.

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 clearly states the tool identifies Liquid templates and sections exceeding a render threshold. The verb 'Identify' is specific and the resource is well-defined. However, it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from sibling profiling tools like get_bottlenecks or analyze_liquid_file, so it misses the highest distinction mark.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions OAuth2 authentication, which is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. There are no exclusions or hints about when to prefer this over get_bottlenecks or profile_page. This leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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