slow_requests

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the ranking metric and parameter constraints (top_n range, min_ms threshold) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any dependencies on opening an archive first, or what the output format looks like. Thus, transparency is only partial.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose followed by a clean argument list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, and the specific metric. However, it omits any mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether an archive must be opened via open_archive) and the expected result format, leaving some gaps for a simple tool.

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%, but the description compensates fully by documenting each parameter: saz_path as the .saz file path, top_n with a 1-100 range, and min_ms as a threshold. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool ranks sessions by total duration with a precise formula (Fiddler TOTAL = ClientDoneResponse - ClientBeginRequest). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sessions or filter_sessions 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 the tool is for identifying slowest sessions but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools or exclusions.

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