identify_performance_bottlenecks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, what data it accesses (e.g., git history, code files), or any side effects. Worse, the 'Args' section in the description lists parameters (focus_areas, custom_patterns) that do not match the actual input schema (which expects bottleneck_patterns), creating confusion about how the tool behaves and what it accepts.

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 uses a structured bullet-list format for usage and an 'Args' section, but the Args section is redundant (repeats parameter info) and inaccurate. The overall length is moderate, but the inaccuracies make some parts unhelpful. It could be tightened and made more coherent.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter (bottleneck_patterns) with no schema description and no output schema. The description provides a high-level 'Returns' statement but does not clarify the structure of the bottleneck_patterns object or explain how focus_areas/custom_patterns relate. This is a significant gap for correct invocation, especially given the parameter mismatch.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does attempt to explain parameters, but the names are wrong: focus_areas and custom_patterns do not exist in the schema, while bottleneck_patterns (the required object parameter) is completely omitted. This misalignment means the description actively misleads the agent about parameter names and meanings, failing to add any correct value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear statement: 'Identify potential performance bottlenecks by analyzing code patterns and complexity.' This is a specific verb+resource and gives a good sense of the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like find_code_hotspots or coderank_analysis, though the usage bullet points hint at a proactive optimization focus.

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 provides a 'Use this tool when you need to' list with concrete scenarios (finding likely performance issues, prioritizing efforts, understanding slow parts, planning improvements). It also states it's 'Perfect for performance optimization planning.' While it doesn't mention when not to use it or name alternatives, the usage context is clear and actionable.

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