analyze_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It explains each mode's action but omits behavioral traits such as read-only status, required permissions, side effects, error handling, or parameter dependencies (e.g., table required for suggest_indexes). The absence of output schema also obscures return values.

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 concise, front-loaded with a one-line summary, and structured as a bullet list. Every sentence adds value without repetition. The format is easily scannable for an AI agent.

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?

Despite covering the main purpose and modes, the description lacks details on mode-specific parameter requirements, output format, and result interpretation. For a tool with 6 parameters and 5 modes, this leaves gaps in completeness, especially without an output schema.

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 description adds significant meaning to the mode parameter by detailing each option. For other parameters (table, minutes_back, threshold_ms, hours, limit), the description implicitly relates them to specific modes but does not provide full semantics. Given 50% schema coverage, the description compensates moderately.

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 explicitly states the tool analyzes ServiceNow instance performance and lists five distinct modes with clear, specific explanations (e.g., 'Find slow Business Rules and scripts from syslog (last N minutes)'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like health_check_instance or get_audit_stats, which have different foci.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to other tools like analyze_dependencies or health_check_instance. Users must infer usage from the mode descriptions.

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