oc_performance_analyze

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, ensuring safety. The description adds transparency by stating the return format (Markdown details and evidence list) and error handling (unknown insight returns error without crashing), which is not covered by annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence covers purpose and output, the second covers error handling. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is nearly sufficient. It covers what the tool does, its inputs, and error behavior. However, it does not explain the format of the returned Markdown details or evidence list, which could be useful for an agent.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds context by tying 'trace_id' to the output of 'oc_performance_insights' and notes that 'insight' is from an enum, with error handling for unknown values. This provides a slight improvement over the schema alone.

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 drills into a specific insight from a trace captured by 'oc_performance_insights', identifying it as a drill-down tool. It distinguishes from the sibling 'oc_performance_insights' which captures traces and returns insights, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates this tool is used after obtaining a trace from 'oc_performance_insights', providing a clear usage context. It also mentions that unknown insight names return an error with supported list, guiding correct input. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or list alternatives beyond the implied dependency.

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