godot_get_performance_metrics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope of metrics (FPS, memory, draw calls, physics) but doesn't disclose details like whether the query is instantaneous or averaged, or if it requires a running project. With annotations covering safety, the description adds moderate value but not rich behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that lists the key metric types. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and has no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by mentioning the category parameter's role.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param, read-only, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. The output schema likely describes the return structure, so the description doesn't need to. The main gap is not mentioning when to use this vs. other performance tools, but for a simple query tool, this is adequate.

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%, but the schema itself provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (category and include_custom_monitors). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. The category parameter's enum values are well-documented 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 states a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('FPS, memory, draw calls, and physics monitors'), which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like godot_inspect_vram_usage and godot_capture_profiler_trace by focusing on a broad set of performance metrics, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 for performance monitoring but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_inspect_vram_usage or godot_capture_profiler_trace. The category parameter provides some context on what can be retrieved, but there's no guidance on when to prefer this over other performance-related tools.

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