get_agent_performance

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, if results are aggregated, paginated, or sorted, nor any permission or data freshness requirements. The description assumes a read operation but fails to confirm it.

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 two sentences, starting with the core purpose. It is concise and front-loaded, wasting no words.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema. The description could be more complete by explaining expected output structure, sorting behavior, or limitations (e.g., time range constraints). As a performance comparison tool, missing details about aggregation and ranking 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., filtering logic, defaults).

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 shows agent performance metrics (calls, duration, completion rate, cost). It implies comparison and identifies the resource (agent performance). While it distinguishes from general agent listing tools, it does not explicitly differentiate from other performance-related siblings like get_hourly_performance.

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 phrase 'Use to find top and bottom performers' gives a concrete use case. However, no guidance is provided on when not to use this tool (e.g., for individual agent details) or alternatives among siblings.

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