diagnose_slow_page

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool performs a sequence of diagnostic steps (a runbook), implying it aggregates multiple metrics and likely performs read-only checks. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether it makes any external calls, or what the output format is. The structured process is disclosed but not the full behavioral profile.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and the required parameters. It is concise with no redundant information. However, the structure is a dense runbook summary that could benefit from breaking out the steps more clearly, though it remains appropriately short.

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?

This is a complex diagnostic tool that orchestrates multiple checks, yet the description provides no information about the expected output, how to interpret results, or the full meaning of all parameters. With no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to know what to expect after invocation or how to use the tool effectively beyond the basic purpose.

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 only 25%, with only the 'namespace' parameter having a description. The tool description adds semantic value for 'proxy_service' by noting it is an nginx workload, and implies 'api_service' is the backend API service. However, it does not clarify the required 'route' parameter or provide further detail on 'namespace'. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 it is a runbook for diagnosing slow frontend routes, listing the diagnostic steps (vitals, TTFB vs render split, bundle/caching, browser API latency, service metrics). It distinguishes itself from backend-focused tools by explicitly mentioning 'frontend route'. However, it does not name any sibling tools directly, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 instructs the user to 'Pass proxy_service (nginx workload) and api_service', which gives a hint about required inputs. It implies usage for slow frontend routes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the individual metrics tools (e.g., get_web_vitals, get_page_load_breakdown) or exclude cases. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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