optimize_performance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions actions like clearing cache and resetting stats but does not warn about potential data loss, performance impact, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and uses 'etc.' to signal additional operations. It is appropriately concise but could be tightened by focusing on the most critical examples. No fluff present.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover usage conditions and effects. It only lists generic operations, missing side effects, return behavior, and prerequisites. For a mutation tool with enums, this is insufficient context.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's examples (clearing cache, resetting stats) mirror the enum values and add no additional meaning beyond the schema. The relationship between target and operation is not clarified, but the schema already documents both parameters adequately.

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 states the tool performs performance optimization operations with concrete examples (清理缓存, 重置统计), identifying it as a mutation/action tool distinct from read-only siblings like get_cache_stats and get_performance_stats. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the examples imply it is for maintenance actions, the description does not state conditions, exclusions, or distinguish it from similar tools like run_performance_benchmark. The agent must infer usage context.

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