get_browser_api_latency

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals it is a 'probe RUM' and that it returns browser-observed latency, but does not disclose potential side effects, response format, pagination, or whether it is read-only (though 'get' implies it). It also does not mention any prerequisites like namespace availability. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the name and schema already imply.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the probe context and clearly states the deliverable and comparison purpose. There is no redundant wording, and every clause contributes to understanding the tool's function. 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 tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sparse. It does not explain return format, how 'slowest assets' are defined, or the necessity of providing namespace (schema hints at it but description does not). It also omits any mention of the 'route' parameter, leaving agents to guess its role. The description is insufficient for confident invocation without further inference.

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 67%, with route lacking a description. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters; it only mentions 'per API endpoint' which loosely maps to route but adds no concrete details. It does not compensate for the missing route documentation or clarify how service and namespace interplay. The description adds little value beyond the schema.

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 the tool provides browser-observed latency per API endpoint and slowest assets, and its purpose of comparing with service-side and proxy-side numbers to localize slowness. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_endpoint_metrics, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'get' is implicit but the resource and intent are unambiguous.

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 usage when you need to localize slowness by comparing browser-side numbers with service/proxy data, giving a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different contexts (e.g., service-side latency). The guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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