tracy_jank_fps

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

The description describes read-like actions (polling, scraping) but annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, creating a potential contradiction. No additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, state changes) is provided beyond the actions.

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 reasonably structured with a brief overview, bulleted actions, and listed args. It could be slightly more concise but avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 moderate complexity, the description sufficiently explains tool usage but lacks guidance on when to choose each action or how output relates to usage. The presence of an output schema (unseen) partially compensates.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful explanation for all parameters: action (with enumerated values), side, duration_seconds, and log_lines, giving context not present in the 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 provides 'Frame-level health, complementing the per-function view' and lists two specific actions (sample_fps and read_jank_logs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on captures, function costs, and status.

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 usage context (frame-level health vs. per-function view) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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