get_performance_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Show' strongly implies a read-only operation and the listed counters describe the data returned, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions required, or any rate/scope constraints.

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 front-loaded sentence with little waste. The parenthetical API path is slightly redundant but still useful context and does not obscure the main 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?

For a simple read tool with complete schema coverage, the description is adequate to select and invoke it. However, with no annotations or output schema, it could say more about read-only behavior, vdom scoping, and whether counters are live or historical.

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 100%, so device_id and vdom are already documented by the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning or format details beyond the schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the resource clearly ('CPU/memory/session/uptime performance counters'). It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from related siblings like get_system_resources or get_device_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 only states what the tool does, with no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools such as get_system_resources, get_device_status, or monitor_get.

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