correlate_chrome_trace

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

No annotations provided, so the description is the sole source. It conveys a read-only analysis operation by describing alignment and calculation using blink.user_timing markers. However, it does not explicitly state that it modifies nothing, nor does it mention prerequisites, limitations, or failure modes.

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 compact sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and includes key details (input sources, marker type, output metrics) efficiently.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what it does, how (alignment via markers), and what it calculates (INP/CLS impact). It lacks explicit limitations or what happens with invalid inputs, but gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions of both paths. The description adds minor context about using blink.user_timing markers, but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema; 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Aligns' with a clear resource ('React commits with Chrome Performance trace events') and a specific outcome ('calculate Core Web Vitals impact'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focusing on rendering analysis, memoization, and state tracing.

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 context is clear: use when you have both a React DevTools profile and a Chrome trace and want to know CWV impact. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specialized wording strongly implies when it applies.

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