ArcadeDB Multi-Model DBMS

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior by stating it returns profiler status and details like captured queries and timing statistics, which helps the agent understand what to expect. However, it lacks information on potential side effects, error conditions, or performance implications, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get the current status of the query profiler') and efficiently details the return values in a single, well-structured sentence. Every part of the description adds necessary information without waste, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (a status check with no input parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, including specific details like captured queries and timing statistics. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential null results or error cases, such as when the profiler is not initialized.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and output without redundant parameter details, adding value by explaining what information is returned rather than repeating schema information.

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 specific action ('Get the current status') and resource ('query profiler'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like profiler_start and profiler_stop by focusing on status retrieval rather than control operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage context by specifying that it returns profiler status and results, suggesting it should be used when monitoring or checking profiler activity. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like server_status or when not to use it, such as during profiler startup/shutdown scenarios.

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