get_performance_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or could be resource-intensive. The only clue is the word 'get', implying read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description provides partial information about return values by mentioning response time and memory usage. It covers most expectations for a performance stats tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention the slow operations aspect, which is present in the schema.

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?

All parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only hinting at response time and memory usage which align with metric_name and include_memory_stats, but it doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 clearly identifies the tool as fetching system performance statistics, mentioning response time and memory usage. It is specific enough to distinguish it from content-related tools, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar performance tools like get_system_health or get_cache_stats.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_system_health or run_performance_benchmark. The description only states what it does, leaving the user to infer the appropriate context without any exclusions or comparisons.

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