Get Render Summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the operation is a read-only summary and lists the kinds of information included, which is helpful. However, it does not describe what happens when no profile is loaded, whether the summary is computed fresh or cached, or what the return structure looks like beyond the listed content.

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 front-loads the core action and resource, then adds relevant detail about the summary's contents. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and a highly descriptive schema, the definition provides enough context about the returned information. Since there is no output schema, the description's mention of top components and detected issues is valuable. A small gap is that it doesn't describe the behavior when profileId is omitted, though the schema does cover that.

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 100%, so both parameters (limit and profileId) are already well documented in the schema. The description adds context by framing the summary around a loaded profile and detected render issues, but it doesn't explain the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('Summarize') on a specific resource ('the loaded Next.js render profile') and names the key output contents: top components by render cost and detected render issues. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_slow_components or get_rerender_causes, so some overlap ambiguity remains, but the 'loaded profile' scope helps differentiate it.

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 'loaded profile' implies the tool should be used after load_render_profile, and the profileId parameter description reinforces this. However, the main description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as compare_renders, get_slow_components, or get_rerender_causes, and it doesn't state when not to use it.

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