uprof_report_hotspots

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

Despite the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: top_n is clamped to 100, output includes row_count_total and truncated flags, and ignore_system_modules causes a re-run excluding system libraries. This goes well beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand side effects and edge cases.

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 sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence and supporting details in subsequent sentences. Every sentence adds value: behavior constraints, output flags, and usage recommendation. No filler or 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?

Given the output schema and the readOnlyHint, the description provides sufficient context. It covers the main behavior, parameter semantics, and even adds output-related context (row_count_total/truncated) that is not required. It offers a recommendation on usage, making it complete for a report tool.

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 compensate. It explains top_n clamping and ignore_system_modules behavior, and mentions result-related output fields. The result_id parameter is not explicitly described, but its meaning is inferable from 'stored result.' This is strong compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 function: 'Top-N hottest functions of a stored result, sorted by sample share descending.' It uses a specific resource ('stored result') and distinguishes itself from siblings like uprof_report_summary and uprof_report_raw by focusing on hotspots.

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 provides clear usage context, such as 'Start with the defaults,' and explains when to use the ignore_system_modules parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, but the purpose itself implies the appropriate scenario.

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