performance_analyze_insight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether this re-runs analysis or just reads cached results, whether it mutates any state, what permissions are needed, or what the response looks like. The only behavioral clue is the implicit dependency on a prior trace.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is good structurally. But at this length the sentence is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it is only adequate.

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?

For a tool whose inputs are opaque IDs, that has no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain where insightSetId/insightName come from and the trace prerequisite. It does neither, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 only 33%: pageId is documented, but the two required parameters (insightSetId and insightName) have no schema descriptions. The description's vague reference to 'a specific insight' does not explain what these identifiers are or how the agent obtains valid values, leaving the burden unmet.

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 conveys that the tool returns additional detail about a single insight drawn from the last performance trace, which ties it to the trace workflow. However, 'More detail' is vague about what is actually returned, and it does not clearly distinguish itself from performance_start_trace/performance_stop_trace beyond the word 'insight'.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement that a trace must be captured first, and no alternatives named. The phrase 'from the last trace' implies a prerequisite, but the agent must infer it rather than being told.

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