performance_analyze_insight

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds context about the source (insight set from a trace recording) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as return format, error handling, or side effects. It adds some value beyond annotations but not rich 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, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. It is concise, front-loaded with the verb, and contains no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 simple tool with two well-documented parameters and a read-only annotation, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's role in the performance analysis workflow. It could be improved by mentioning the expected output format, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature make the current description reasonably complete.

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%, with both parameters (insightSetId and insightName) clearly documented in the input schema. The tool description does not add any extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: providing more detailed information on a specific Performance Insight. It specifies the resource (Performance Insight of an insight set) and the context (highlighted in a trace recording), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like performance_start_trace and performance_stop_trace.

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 when to use the tool (after a trace recording, to get details on a highlighted insight) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no direct comparison to other performance tools, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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