run_profiled_player

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

Annotations indicate a mutation tool, and the description adds context: starts GPU-accelerated player, measures specific performance metrics, writes JSON, and self-terminates. It guides to call get_profile_result after. It does not disclose potential resource usage or job duration, but adds significant value beyond annotations.

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 sentences pack all essential information: purpose, workflow, parameter context, and follow-up step. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with key actions.

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 is part of a multi-step process, the description covers its role, inputs, and output destination. It references sibling tools and workflow. Minor gaps: no mention of error handling or job status, but overall sufficient for selection and invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well: 'exe_path' is the built player, 'perf_file' is the output file, 'frames' is the count of frames to measure, 'width' and 'height' define window size. This adds meaning to all parameters.

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 starts the player built by profile_play, measures N frames, writes performance JSON, and the player terminates. It distinguishes itself from siblings like profile_play (builds the player) and get_profile_result (retrieves results) by being step 2.

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?

It explicitly positions itself as 'SCHRITT 2 (Job)' and references profile_play (step 1) and get_profile_result (step 3), providing clear workflow guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or exclude conditions.

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