analyze_ui5_performance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It mentions 'actionable recommendations' which suggests the tool provides guidance rather than just diagnostics, but doesn't cover important aspects like whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like (though an output schema exists).

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 3-parameter analysis tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks parameter guidance and behavioral context. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description should still address when to use this tool versus siblings and provide more parameter context given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'sourceDir', 'maxFiles', or 'maxFindings' mean or how they affect the analysis. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in 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 analyzes UI5 XML/JS files with performance-focused rules and provides actionable recommendations. It specifies the resource (UI5 XML/JS files) and the focus (performance), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_ui5_project' or 'validate_ui5_code' which might have overlapping scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'analyze_ui5_project', 'validate_ui5_code', and 'run_project_quality_gate', there's no indication of when performance analysis is preferred over other types of analysis or validation.

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