trace_profile_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it displays a chart but does not specify whether it is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. The agent cannot infer safety or resource impact beyond the stated display action.

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 very concise: three sentences plus a return note, with no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the main action.

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 no parameters and an output schema existing, the description covers the essential purpose and a prerequisite. However, it could provide more context about the output format, data scope, or relationship to tracing workflow. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to explain parameter details; it mentions the return type briefly. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate given no 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 displays a profile chart from recorded trace data, showing instruction execution statistics per function. It is distinct from sibling tools like trace_start or trace_stop, and the verb 'Display' combined with 'profile chart' gives a specific action and resource.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires trace data to have been recorded first') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., bmc_profile_chart) or when not to use it. No explicit context for selection among siblings.

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