network_performance

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 indicates the tool retrieves statistics (implying a read operation), but does not disclose return format, whether a live connection is required, error behavior, or any limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 no redundancy. It conveys the action and target efficiently, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter, the description is thin. It fails to explain the context for use (e.g., when a tab is connected, what constitutes 'performance statistics'), and does not reference sibling alternatives. A minimal description may be acceptable for a trivial tool, but this one lacks essential behavioral and usage context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage: the only parameter tabId has a description ('The ID of the tab to analyze'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Get network performance statistics for a connected browser tab'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('network performance statistics') and specifies the target ('connected browser tab'). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like network_analyze, which likely performs similar or overlapping 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 provides minimal context: it implies a browser tab must be connected. It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_analyze or network_export_har, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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