windows_performance

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

The description mentions integration with FastMCP 3.2 Context for real-time progress reporting and LLM-in-the-loop diagnostics, adding transparency beyond the schema. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose error handling behavior or permissions needed, limiting the score to 3.

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 moderately concise but includes a rationale paragraph that is somewhat redundant with the first sentence. The parameter list is clearly structured, but the rationale could be condensed. It is front-loaded with the main 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?

The tool has 4 parameters with low schema coverage and no annotations, so the description should be richer. It covers action types, pid usage, include_network, and duration_seconds but omits details like return format or sampling behavior. With an output schema present, return values are handled, but missing details on system impact or prerequisites reduce completeness.

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 provides brief descriptions of each parameter in the Args section, but they are minimal (e.g., 'process ID to monitor (for "process")') and do not explain enumeration values or defaults fully. The description adds some meaning but is insufficient.

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 performs Windows Performance monitoring, consolidating system-wide, process-specific, and low-level counter monitoring. The example usage and parameters (action, pid, include_network, duration_seconds) clarify the scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like system_management or system_health_card, so it loses a point.

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 mentions 'consolidates system-wide, process-specific, and low-level counter monitoring' and provides parameter details, implying different use cases for each action. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., system_health_card for quick health checks), and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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