analyze_performance

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions what it checks (loading, images, rendering) but does not disclose behavioral traits like computational cost, side effects, or required permissions. Minimal disclosure for a tool that likely performs static analysis.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded, and content is compact and clear.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, description is mostly complete. Mentions three performance areas but could clarify output format (e.g., list of issues). Still sufficient for agent to understand scope.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds marginal value by listing check aspects, but schema already enumerates check_type options. Does not fully compensate for missing output schema details.

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?

Clearly states it analyzes code for performance issues and Core Web Vitals optimization, specifying areas like resource loading, image optimization, and rendering. Distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_accessibility which focus on other aspects.

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?

Implies use for performance analysis but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor provides exclusions or prerequisites. For example, no guidance on when to use analyze_performance vs check_seo or other performance-related siblings.

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