audit_performance

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by enumerating specific anti-patterns detected (N+1 queries, etc.). No contradictions; the description complements the annotations well.

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?

Two concise sentences, no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the single parameter and absence of output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. It could mention the return format, but the provided information is adequate for an audit tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter projectPath has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning or usage context for the parameter, so baseline score 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?

The description clearly states the tool detects performance anti-patterns, with specific examples like N+1 queries, unbounded calls, missing pagination, and payload bloat. This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools such as audit_security or audit_prisma.

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 the tool is for performance auditing but does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. No exclusion criteria or comparative guidance is given.

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