get_app_insights

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions caching (5 minutes) and the ability to filter by insight_type, but does not disclose read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior for invalid app_id.

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 well-structured with a brief overview, a list of insight types, and a docstring-style parameter section. It is concise yet informative, though some sentences could be slightly tighter.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers caching, filtering, and parameter details adequately. Missing information about pagination or error handling prevents a higher score.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: app_id as the application ID, insight_type with allowed values (n_plus_one, memory_bloat, slow_query) and default, and limit as max items per type with default 20. This adds essential meaning beyond 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 that the tool retrieves or generates performance insights for an application, listing specific types like N+1 queries, memory bloat, and slow queries. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., get_app_endpoints, get_app_metrics) by focusing on application-level performance insights.

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 usage for getting performance insights but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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