cdn_analyze_cdn_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the analysis nature (implying read-only) and the 'Smart identifier resolution' behavior, plus the return fields. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not mention authentication requirements, or any other side effects. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear summary, an argument list, and a return section. The main purpose is front-loaded. It is not overly verbose, and each sentence adds value.

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 that an output schema exists, the return details are covered. The description covers the parameters and the 'Smart identifier resolution' feature. It does not mention prerequisites or error conditions, and it lacks explicit differentiation from similar CDN analysis tools, but the essential information for calling the tool is present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains zone_identifier: 'use origin domain, CDN domain, or UUID' and days: 'Number of days to analyze (default: 7)'. This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has type and default. However, it does not elaborate on edge cases or format constraints, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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's purpose: 'Analyze CDN zone performance over the specified period.' This is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like cdn_get_cdn_zone_stats, which also provides performance-related data, so it lacks explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cdn_get_cdn_zone_stats or cdn_get_cdn_zone_logs. The description mentions 'Smart identifier resolution' but that pertains to parameter input, not usage context. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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