get_performance_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions it 'Generate[s]' a visualization, implying a read-like operation, but it doesn't state whether this is a pure analysis operation, whether it runs a fresh Lighthouse audit or uses cached data, whether the Mermaid output format has rendering requirements, or how the result is returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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, reasonably concise sentence that names all the key elements (performance score, CWV status, optimization opportunities) being visualized. It's efficient with no filler words, though it could be slightly restructured for front-loading the most important action-first information.

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?

The tool generates a visual artifact (Mermaid flowchart) which is a non-trivial output format that an agent might need to know how to render or embed. There is no output schema to clarify the return format, and the description doesn't explain what consuming an agent should do with the Mermaid code. For a tool that produces a specialized output format, this is a meaningful gap, though the 100% parameter schema coverage helps.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters (url and strategy with enum values and defaults). The description adds awareness that the output will incorporate performance data, which implies the URL and strategy affect the generated map, but it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 what the tool does: generate a Mermaid flowchart visualizing performance score, Core Web Vitals status, and optimization opportunities. The verb 'Generate' plus the specific resource ('Mermaid flowchart') and the enumerated content elements make the purpose clear. It reasonably distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the visual 'single map' aspect, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_performance_summary or get_visual_analysis.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With 16 siblings including get_performance_summary, get_visual_analysis, and full_report, there is no indication of when a user should prefer a Mermaid flowchart over other visualization or summary options. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered.

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