analyze_results

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it 'Returns summary metrics and findings,' giving some insight into output behavior. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it may have, or any error conditions. This is minimal transparency but not misleading, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, providing usage timing, and describing the return value. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no extraneous information. Conciseness is excellent.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, but the description leaves gaps. It doesn't explicitly define results_path or address potential side effects or prerequisites beyond timing. While concise and clear about the core function, it misses key details for a fully self-contained description, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 one parameter (results_path) with zero description coverage. The description does not explicitly explain what results_path should contain, though it is implied to be the path to the JTL file. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to adequately compensate for the missing parameter documentation, resulting in a score of 2.

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: 'Summarise a JTL and rank bottleneck findings at p95/p99.' It specifies the resource (JTL) and the precise action (summarize/rank), which differentiates it from siblings like run_test or compile_report. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 explicitly provides a timing condition: 'Use after a completed run.' This is clear usage context. However, it doesn't mention when not to use the tool or explicitly name alternatives, though the sibling tool list provides implicit differentiation. This is clear context without exclusions, warranting a 4.

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