atlas_profiler

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behaviors (analyzes, identifies, detects, generates) but does not state whether the tool modifies code, requires execution, has side effects, or what the output format looks like beyond 'optimization suggestions with benchmark code'. This leaves transparency gaps for a complex profiling 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy or filler, making it highly concise while covering the main capabilities.

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 has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level overview but lacks details on the return format, how the benchmarks are presented, and how parameters like expectedInputSize or constraints affect results. It is adequate but incomplete for guiding an agent through a full profiling session.

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 structured schema already explains all 11 parameters. The description adds context about the overall goal but does not add insights about any specific parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Performance profiling and Big-O analysis' and enumerates specific actions (analyzes time/space complexity, identifies hotspots, detects leaks, generates suggestions). This is a specific resource-focused description that distinguishes it from many sibling tools like atlas_debug or atlas_execution_sandbox by emphasizing complexity analysis and leak detection.

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 when to use the tool (when you need performance profiling or complexity analysis) but does not provide explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. It lacks guidance such as 'for debugging use atlas_debug instead' or 'only for standalone code snippets'.

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