ingest_perf_results

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates nodes and edges (write operation), describes the return dict format including error handling, and specifies file format expectations. This provides adequate behavioral context, though it doesn't mention any side effects like overwriting existing data.

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 concise with a few sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and uses a clear structure with separate sections for args and returns. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the return keys (ingested, matched_methods, unmatched, error) and the required parameters with format details. However, it does not mention prerequisites like whether the repo must already be indexed, and lacks details on potential error scenarios beyond the generic error dict.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add value. It explains repo_name as 'logical name of indexed repository' and file_path as absolute path with allowed file extensions (.log, .xml, .json), providing meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 ingests Gatling/JMeter/JSON perf results files into the graph, creating PerfSample nodes and OBSERVED_AT edges. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools, which are primarily analysis or query tools.

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 ingesting performance results but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or prerequisites for using it.

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