bmc_profile_chart

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

With no annotations, the description correctly states the prerequisite and return type, but does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. It implies non-destructive behavior but could be more explicit.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-liner, followed by explanation, prerequisites, parameter details, and return value. Every sentence serves a purpose 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, prerequisite, parameter behavior, and return expectation. It is complete and sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description explains the 'counters' parameter with examples and clarifies that an empty array uses all configured counters. This adds significant value beyond the schema, which only provides type information without description coverage.

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 displays a BMC profile chart with counter data mapped to instruction flow, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like trace_profile_chart by focusing on BMC counters, and includes prerequisite context.

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 states the prerequisite that BMC counters must have been recorded, giving a clear condition for use. However, it does not compare with alternatives or specify when not to use this tool, which is acceptable given the context.

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