Optimize performance

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

The description discloses key behavioral nuances beyond the annotations: default is read-only, apply=true triggers mutation of TOP resolutions, and it returns before/after sizes. This clarifies the destructiveHint annotation by scoping the destructive behavior to a specific flag, while adding output expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, tightly packed with relevant information. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose; the second covers behavior, alternatives, and usage guidance without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage alternatives, behavioral modes, and return information ('before/after sizes', 'report the bottlenecks and suggestions'). Despite no output schema, it gives enough to understand what the tool returns in both apply modes. The dual-mode complexity is well explained.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantic role of apply and scale in the mutation process ('mutates flagged TOP resolutions by scale') and the resulting before/after sizes, which is not fully captured in the schema. This pushes it above baseline.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource combination: 'Scan a network for cook-time bottlenecks and report the slowest nodes with concrete suggestions.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_td_performance by explicitly naming that tool and contrasting its purpose.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Run get_td_performance when you only need metrics; use this tool when you want the bounded resolution change, and leave apply=false for a plan-only pass.' This gives both an alternative and a clear conditional usage pattern.

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