get_bottlenecks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavior (profiling and detecting anti-patterns) and the output format (recommendations, severity, locations, impact, fixes). However, it doesn't mention any side effects, prerequisites like login, or whether it's read-only. The absence of such disclosure is a gap, but the description is not misleading.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the main action, followed by output details and a usage claim. Every sentence contributes value and there is no unnecessary repetition.

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 tool of this complexity, the description covers the primary behavior and the full output format, which is substantial. It doesn't mention preconditions (e.g., requires authentication) or limitations, but the core functionality is well-explained. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, this is fairly complete.

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%, so the schema documents both parameters (storeUrl and pagePath) with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level information, so it doesn't go beyond the baseline 3 for high 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 uses a specific verb ('Profile a page') and clearly states the purpose: automatically detect performance anti-patterns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming to be the BEST tool for identifying what to optimize, giving it a unique role among profiling tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'This is the BEST tool for identifying what to optimize.' However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives, and it doesn't explain when not to use it, but the strong usage recommendation elevates it above an implied guideline.

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