Measure search latency for local vault queries by running a specified query over multiple iterations to benchmark performance.
Measure local search latency.
Results describe only this process, data set, configuration, and runtime.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | benchmark search text | test |
| iterations | No | bounded iteration count |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that results are scoped to the current process, data set, configuration, and runtime, which is a useful behavioral caveat. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects or that it is non-destructive, especially given no annotations are present.
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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and then clarifies the result scope.
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 a simple input schema and the description sufficiently conveys its purpose and result nature. It lacks explicit output details, but given the tool's simplicity and no output schema, it is adequately 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?
Both parameters have descriptions, but they are terse and add minimal meaning beyond the parameter names. The schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the descriptions provide only slight clarification.
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 a specific action ('Measure local search latency') that distinguishes it from sibling search tools that actually perform searches. It is concise and unambiguous.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search and indexing tools. It implies a benchmarking use-case but never explicitly states conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.