Get Slow Components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the ranking behavior and the dependence on an already-loaded profile, and 'Return' implies a read-only operation. But it does not state side effects (or lack thereof), behavior when the profile is missing, or whether the result is limited by the default 10-item cap—though some of this is covered by schema parameter descriptions.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the resource, ranking metric, and context with no filler. Every phrase earns its place, and the key scope information appears before any elaboration.

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 a fully documented parameter schema, a clear one-sentence purpose, and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool: what it returns, how results are ranked, and the loaded-profile prerequisite. It does not describe the return shape, but the lack of an output schema makes this a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 the schema already documents profileId, limit, sortBy, and minSelfDuration with defaults and enums. The description adds minimal extra parameter insight ('total actual render time' roughly aligns with the default sortBy), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Return the slowest components') and adds a concrete ranking criterion ('ranked by total actual render time') plus the required context ('in a loaded Next.js render profile'). This clearly separates it from sibling analysis tools like get_render_summary, compare_renders, and get_rerender_causes.

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 'in a loaded Next.js render profile' implies the prerequisite that a profile must first be loaded, and the schema ties profileId to load_render_profile. However, the description does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_render_summary or get_rerender_causes, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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