profile_report

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that the operation is a condensation of a several-hundred-line nsys output into a few findings, which hints at lossy aggregation, but it does not describe failure behavior when the job was never profiled or any rate/permission constraints. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the condensation benefit. Every sentence 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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, and it correctly communicates the report's general content and the profile_job prerequisite. The one gap is the undocumented 'top' parameter, which leaves invocation details to inference.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It names no parameters: job_id is only implied, and the 'top' parameter (default 5) is never mentioned, even though 'noyaux les plus coûteux' gestures at a top-N concept without explaining that the count is configurable.

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?

States a specific verb (Résume) and resource (le rapport de profilage d'un job traité par profile_job), and enumerates the actual content: répartition calcul/transferts mémoire and noyaux les plus coûteux. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling profile_job, which produces the raw profiling rather than the report summary.

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 'd'un job traité par profile_job' establishes a clear prerequisite: the job must first have been profiled. It gives strong usage context but does not state when NOT to use it or name explicit alternatives among the many sibling job tools.

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