uprof_report_summary

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses a meaningful side effect: 'Generates the CSV report on first use (cached in the session dir afterwards).' This tells the agent about the caching behavior and first-use generation, adding insight into what happens when the tool is invoked. There is no contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the behavioral note and parameter source. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (one required parameter, output schema present, readOnlyHint annotation), the description covers purpose, usage context, behavior, and parameter origin. No critical gaps remain.

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%, but the sole parameter result_id is explained as coming from uprof_collect or uprof_list_results. This gives the agent a clear source for the parameter value. It doesn't describe format specifics, but for a single parameter derived from other tools, this is sufficient.

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 explicitly states it provides a parsed run overview of a stored result, listing key content (duration, top hotspots, host details). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning it as the fastest way to understand a collection before drilling into hotspots, clearly separating it from 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 gives clear when-to-use guidance ('The fastest way to understand a collection before drilling into hotspots') and explains where result_id comes from (uprof_collect or uprof_list_results). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'before drilling into hotspots' phrase implies the workflow.

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