perf_audit_assets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions scanning and calculation but does not state whether the tool modifies any files, requires network access, or is read-only. For a scan-and-analyze tool, the lack of explicit non-destructive or side-effect disclosure is a significant gap.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and outcome. There is zero extraneous information, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool's function. Structure is optimal for quick agent comprehension.

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?

For a relatively simple scan tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context to invoke it correctly. It explains the scan target and the calculation performed. It does not describe the return format, but for a scan tool this is a minor omission given the overall simplicity.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already cover defaults and meanings. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it repeats the threshold and target directory defaults). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Scans') and resource ('repository for oversized raster images') and clearly distinguishes its outcome ('calculates bandwidth savings from WebP/AVIF conversion'). This is precise and differentiates it from sibling tools like perf_check_headers or code_inspect_heavy_dependencies without ambiguity.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (auditing repository for image size and conversion benefits) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison to sibling tools and no exclusions are given, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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