get_profile_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by enumerating the specific return fields (avgFrameMs, maxMemMB, etc.), providing behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it omits necessary parameter details, so brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

With one required parameter and no output schema, the description lists return values but does not explain the parameter 'perf_file' (e.g., its format or source). The description is incomplete for an agent to use the tool without additional 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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the single required parameter 'perf_file'. The description fails to explain what 'perf_file' is or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without critical information to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Description clearly states it reads a profiling result with specific metrics (avgFrameMs, avgFps, etc.), which is a precise verb+resource combination. Among sibling tools like 'profile_play' that start profiling, this one retrieves results, providing clear differentiation.

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?

Description implies usage after profiling is performed but does not specify prerequisites like needing to run 'profile_play' first. No explicit guidance on when or when not to use, or alternatives.

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