performance_analyze_insight

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation, so the description's main added value is scoping it to insight sets from a trace recording. It does not disclose return format, whether results are cached, or any depth/limit on the 'more detailed information', which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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 or repetition. It could be marginally tighter ('Provides details on' rather than 'Provides more detailed information on'), but it is efficient and well-structured.

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 simple three-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential purpose. However, with no output schema, it leaves the shape and depth of the returned insight data entirely unspecified, which is a real gap for an agent deciding whether this call will give it what it needs.

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 an example insight name. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieving 'more detailed information on a specific Performance Insight of an insight set' produced by a trace recording. This clearly separates it from siblings like performance_start_trace and performance_stop_trace, though the phrasing 'Provides more detailed information' is a little generic about the retrieval mechanics.

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 'highlighted in the results of a trace recording' implies this is a follow-up tool used after a trace has produced insight sets, but it never names the alternative tool(s) or states explicit when/when-not conditions. Usage context is implied rather than prescribed.

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