Analyze cold/warm launch breakdown

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It describes parsing and returning data but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, or disclose side effects, error handling, or limitations. However, the name 'analyze' suggests non-destructive behavior, and the description is adequate for an analysis tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action ('Parse the app-launch schema') and followed by a list of returned data. Every word is informative with no 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 tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, input requirements, and output contents. It is missing error conditions or usage examples, but for a focused analysis tool it is largely complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for 'tracePath' (same info) and some added context for 'outputFormat' (default behavior and special case for other tools). Overall, it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 uses specific verbs ('Parse', 'Returns') and explicitly names the resource ('app-launch schema from a .trace recorded with the App Launch Instruments template'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'analyzeAllocations' by specifying the template. The output contents (total launch time, type, per-phase breakdown, slowest phase) are detailed.

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 clearly states the input must be a .trace file recorded with the App Launch template, providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply each analyze tool targets a specific template.

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