performance_report

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully explain behavioral traits. It only states that the tool retrieves data, but omits details such as side effects, latency, output format, or whether the tool is safe to call frequently. This is insufficient for informed invocation.

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, short sentence that is immediately clear and free of unnecessary words. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but arguably sufficient for basic understanding. However, given the large number of sibling tools with similar descriptions, more context on what specific metrics and bottlenecks are included would improve completeness.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description adds no param-specific meaning, but no parameters exist to document. This is acceptable for a parameterless tool.

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 'Get performance metrics and bottlenecks' clearly states the action and resource, indicating the tool retrieves performance data. However, it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'diagnostics', 'analyze', or 'memory_usage', which may overlap in purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or suggested use cases, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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