performance_analyze_insight

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context that it drills into insights previously surfaced by a trace recording, but says nothing about what the returned detail looks like or any limits on valid insight names beyond the schema example.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the drill-down intent is stated immediately. It is compact but arguably under-specified rather than wasteful.

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?

For a read-only, three-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage and an annotations-declared safety profile, most needs are met. The gap is explaining the shape of the 'more detailed information' returned, since no output schema exists to carry that.

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%, so all three parameters (pageId, insightName, insightSetId) are already documented in the schema, including the example insight names and the 'use only ids from Available insight sets' constraint. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb (provides detailed information) and a specific resource (a Performance Insight within an insight set from a trace recording). This distinguishes it from siblings like performance_start_trace and performance_stop_trace as a drill-down tool, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 phrase 'of an insight set that was highlighted in the results of a trace recording' implies the workflow context (call after a trace surfaces insights). However, it never states explicitly when to use this versus performance_start_trace/stop_trace, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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