export_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses output behavior (save to file or return inline) and provides format details, but does not mention auth requirements, side effects, or whether it's a read-only operation. The format descriptions add some context, but the side-effect profile remains unclear.

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, highly concise, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every phrase adds useful information: the command, the formats, and output options. No wasted words.

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 formats and output options, and the schema documents all parameters. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this versus sibling profiling tools and does not address behavioral aspects like authentication or side effects. Given there is no output schema, the return structure for inline content is also not detailed. Overall it is adequate for a simple export tool but leaves some gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what each format means (speedscope JSON, csv spreadsheet-friendly, markdown report with tables and severity badges) and by clarifying outputPath behavior via 'Can save to a file or return inline.' This enriches the 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 clearly states the tool profiles a page and exports results in a specified format, with a specific verb and resource. It lists supported formats, which helps understanding, but does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings like profile_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied: if you need to export profiling data in a particular format, this is the tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus profile_page or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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