generate_performance_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool generates a plan with scripts and guides, implying a non-destructive, output-producing action. However, it does not mention whether it modifies anything, requires authentication, or has side effects (e.g., file creation on disk). This is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence efficiently conveys the full scope of what the tool generates, including test types, thresholds, commands, and analysis guide. No redundancy. However, for an agent that may not read Portuguese, the language choice could be a barrier, but that does not affect conciseness scoring.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to specify what the tool returns (e.g., a file path, a string, a structured object) and how the agent should use the result. The guide mentioned is part of the generated content, but the return format is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning to any of the 5 parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It is a general overview rather than per-parameter enrichment.

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?

Description clearly states it generates a k6 performance plan including specific test types (smoke, load, stress, spike, soak), SLA-derived thresholds, execution commands, and analysis guide. The verb 'gera' and resource 'plano de performance' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'generate_test_strategy' or 'security_test_checklist'.

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 implies this tool should be used when a k6 performance script is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'generate_test_strategy' for high-level planning). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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