get_profile_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that profiling calls are auto-saved and that trends are shown, but it omits the destructive `clearHistory` capability, painting the tool as purely view-only when it can delete history. This is a significant under-disclosure for a tool with a mutation side effect.

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, each earning its place: purpose, detail, and usage guidance. No fluff or repetition. Front-loaded with the core 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary functionality and use case, but lacks disclosure of the clearHistory side effect and does not describe what the returned history data looks like. These gaps prevent it from being fully complete, though the core viewing purpose is well covered.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some conceptual context (history auto-save, trend tracking) but does not enrich any specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states. The `clearHistory` parameter's destructive nature is not reinforced in the description.

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 opens with 'View profiling history and performance trends for a store' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on historical trends over time, and adds context with 'Shows how render times have changed over time.'

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 explicitly states 'Use this to track the impact of optimizations,' giving a concrete when-to-use scenario. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough to differentiate from siblings like get_profile_summary or find_slow_templates.

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