analyze-bottlenecks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It delivers by enumerating six specific detection categories (high-branching rules, tilde negation, lexer mode opportunities, greedy loops, deep recursion, token prefix collisions) and four return elements including severity levels. It lacks side-effect/permission details, but these are largely irrelevant for a read-only analysis tool.

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?

Well-structured markdown with clear sections (purpose, when to use, detects, returns, example). The key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each bullet list provides specific, actionable detail without redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the full context: what it does, when to use it, what issues it detects, what it returns (important given the absence of an output schema), and how to invoke it with an example. Minor gap: since both parameters are optional, it is unclear how the tool obtains the grammar when neither is provided.

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% — both parameters are fully described in the schema — so the baseline is 3. The description adds only an example showing from_file usage ('from_file: "MyGrammar.g4"'), which marginally demonstrates invocation format but adds no semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence states a specific action ('Analyze grammar') with a clear scope ('performance bottlenecks and optimization opportunities'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze-ambiguities, analyze-lexer-modes, and detect-redos, which target different aspects of grammar 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 includes an explicit 'When to use' section naming three use cases: performance optimization, grammar refactoring, and large grammar analysis. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar.

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