get_timing_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that it executes report_timing_summary and parses the result, which gives some insight into its behavior. However, it does not mention potential side effects, session requirements, or whether it is a read-only operation, limiting full transparency.

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 appropriately sized: a one-sentence summary followed by brief internal details and return characteristics. Every sentence adds value and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool has a single parameter, an output schema, and a straightforward purpose. The description covers the purpose, internal execution, and output features (human-readable, Chinese, PASS/FAIL). It lacks explicit usage guidance and parameter elaboration, but is otherwise adequate for a report-generation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, session_id, is described as '目标会话 ID' (target session ID), which merely restates the parameter name. It does not explain how to obtain the session ID, the meaning of the default value, or any constraints.

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 retrieves a structured timing report, specifically executing report_timing_summary and parsing it into a summary with critical path details. It differentiates itself from siblings like get_utilization_report and get_io_report by focusing on timing analysis.

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 by naming the underlying command (report_timing_summary) and the PASS/FAIL status, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_critical_warnings or other report tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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