Create a FiveM performance test plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait: 'It never claims a speedup without measurements,' which sets expectations for evidence-based output. This goes beyond the annotations by specifying a policy.

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, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word provides value: the evidence types and the no-speedup claim. No fluff or 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?

The tool has only two parameters and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks guidance on what constitutes a valid 'scenario' or how 'runtime' influences the plan. This creates a gap in fully supporting a correct invocation, though the low complexity keeps it from being critically incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. However, it does not mention 'scenario' or 'runtime' at all. The enum values for runtime are self-explanatory, but 'scenario' is undefined beyond a length constraint, leaving the agent to guess its meaning.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('reproducible measurement plan'), and specifies the evidence types (profiler, resmon, network, or NUI). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_native or audit_nui_compatibility, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for creating a measurement plan but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions. The phrase 'Create a reproducible measurement plan...' indicates the context, but no alternatives or prerequisites are given.

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