get_user_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 states 'Get performance statistics' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, fields). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in describing how it behaves beyond basic functionality.

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, straightforward sentence: 'Get performance statistics of a user'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as hinting at the types of statistics or context.

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 complexity (a tool with 2 required parameters and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'performance statistics' includes, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it remains minimal and leaves key contextual gaps.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('username' and 'perf' with enum values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get performance statistics of a user' clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('performance statistics of a user'), but it's vague about what 'performance statistics' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_user_public_data', which might also provide user-related data. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_user_profile' or 'get_rating_history', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it's preferred. It implies usage for performance data but doesn't specify context or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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