evaluate_performance

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 behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'analyzes' and 'identifies bottlenecks,' which implies read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly state whether any code is modified, what side effects may occur, or what form the output takes. This leaves important behavior unspecified.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the purpose without wasted words. It is concise, front-loaded, and easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple tool with one well-documented parameter, this is minimally viable. However, the description does not explain what the analysis output looks like or whether the tool is read-only, and with no output schema and no annotations, those details would help the agent set expectations.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter projectPath with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or usage detail for this parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: analyzing code performance and identifying bottlenecks. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the focus on 'performance' and 'bottlenecks' helps distinguish it from broader siblings like analyze_code_quality, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as analyze_code_quality or check_security_vulnerabilities. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions that should trigger its use or any exclusions.

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