editor_get_performance

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation with 'Get' and adds the prerequisite 'while game is running.' However, it does not disclose what happens if the game is not running, nor describe the return format or any side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 sentence of nine words that front-loads the verb and key metrics. It contains no fluff and every word earns its place.

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 context: what is retrieved and when. There is no output schema, but listing FPS, draw calls, and memory usage gives a reasonable idea of the return data. It could be more detailed about types or error conditions, but it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 fully covers parameter semantics. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameterless tools, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail.

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 the specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource: performance metrics (FPS, draw calls, memory usage). It further specifies the timing condition 'while game is running,' which distinguishes this tool from editor-only or project-modification siblings.

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 phrase 'while game is running' provides clear context for when this tool should be used. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing condition is a useful and explicit guideline.

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