profile_play

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

The description discloses that the tool produces exe_path and perf_file, that real values require the running player, and that it is a build step. This adds behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 three concise sentences in German, front-loading the purpose and workflow. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers purpose and workflow but lacks parameter documentation and behavioral details (e.g., asynchronicity, failure modes). With no output schema, more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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% description coverage for its 4 parameters. The description does not explain any parameter meanings or constraints (e.g., frames, version). It only mentions outputs, leaving the agent to guess parameter semantics.

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 builds a development player for profiling (step 1 of runtime profiling). It uses specific verbs (baut) and resources (Development-Player der Szene) and distinguishes from siblings like build_player and run_profiled_player by specifying it includes profiling instrumentation.

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 outlines the intended workflow (build → run_profiled_player → get_profile_result) and contrasts with headless editor (no real values). It implies when to use this tool but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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