game_performance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The word "Get" implies a read-only, non-mutating operation, and the listed metrics clarify what is returned. However, the description does not disclose whether the values are live snapshots, their units, or whether any runtime state is required.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, naming both the operation and the exact data returned.

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 simple parameterless getter, the description covers the essential information: what operation is performed and what data is returned. It could be more complete by stating the return structure or units, but the absence of parameters and output schema keeps the context manageable.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema contributes nothing and the description is not required to document parameters. The metric names in the description clarify the conceptual outputs, which is sufficient given the parameterless signature.

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, "Get," with a clear resource, "performance metrics," and explicitly lists the contained metrics: FPS, memory, draw calls. This distinguishes it from the many game_* siblings, none of which target performance metrics.

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 when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs performance data for the running game. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions to prefer another tool, but for a parameterless getter this is a reasonable implicit guidance.

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