sample_performance

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context beyond them — that the call advances the game, leaves it paused afterward, and returns bounded series with units and summaries, so the agent knows there is a side effect on runtime state. It stops short of covering timeout or session-expiry behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat about advancing the game placed where it is likely to be read. No filler, though the return-value sentence partially duplicates the output schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be spelled out, and the side-effect disclosure is helpful. But for a 6-parameter tool at 17% schema coverage, the description leaves too much of the sampling configuration undocumented to be fully 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 description coverage is 17% and only sessionId carries a description. The description says nothing about kind (physics vs process), the samples count, the monitors list, intervalFrames stepping, or timeoutMs, so an agent must infer all five from bare schema constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: sampling selected runtime Performance monitors across stepped frames in a paused debug session. It also draws a line against passive profiling, which distinguishes it conceptually from get_performance_monitors, though it never names that sibling.

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 clause 'not passive/full profiling' and 'in a paused debug session' imply when this tool applies and when it does not, but there is no explicit instruction such as 'use get_performance_monitors for a single passive snapshot' or any stated prerequisite like an active debug session.

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