analyze_perf

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It indicates a read-only analysis operation, but does not disclose behavior for missing traces, error handling, or side effects. The output schema exists, which mitigates some transparency concerns.

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 single-sentence description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value, though it could be slightly expanded with structural markers.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks parameter details, usage context, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool with 2 parameters and 7 siblings, the description is insufficiently 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 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters (trace_id, slow_threshold_ms). The mention of 'slow spans' hints at threshold usage but fails to define the parameter's role or default behavior.

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 analyzes trace performance and lists specific outputs like latency breakdown, slow spans, and critical path. It distinguishes itself from siblings like analyze_errs (errors) and summarize_trace (summary) by focusing on performance details.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deep_analyze or list_traces. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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