uprof_report_raw

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses caching behavior after first use, regeneration into report-raw.csv when extra_args are supplied, and head+tail truncation. It also notes that full data is available via files under result_dir. The mention of `command` is confusing but does not contradict 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?

The description is a compact three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds useful context: the stdout contrast, the extra_args behavior, and the truncation caveat. The unclear `command` sentence is a minor flaw, but overall it's efficient.

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 the main behavioral aspects: what is returned, how extra_args affects generation, truncation behavior, and where to find full data. Given the presence of an output schema (which likely details the return structure), the description is reasonably complete. It lacks explicit result_id guidance but is sufficient for a raw 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates: it explains extra_args as 'raw AMDuProfCLI report options, each starting with "-"' and says they cause regeneration into report-raw.csv. However, result_id is only implicitly defined as a stored result identifier, and the description introduces a non-schema parameter `command`, muddying the 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 it returns 'raw uProf CSV report text for a stored result,' with 'escape hatch' signaling raw output distinct from sibling summary tools. It specifies the resource (stored result) and the action (returns CSV) and differentiates from siblings like uprof_report_summary and uprof_report_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 explains the tool is an 'escape hatch' for raw CSV, contrasted with uProf's normal stdout behavior. It advises that long output is truncated and full data should be read via files under result_dir, implying when not to rely on this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools for summarized reports.

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