check_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool can stop recording (a write operation) and provides subsystem information when data is ready. However, it does not clarify side effects of stopping (e.g., whether it ends the session irreversibly) or any permission requirements, leaving moderate transparency gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and efficiently covers key points. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., mentions 'subsystems' twice), but overall concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: status checking, subsystem discovery, and optional stop. It could include more about the return format or when data is 'ready', but it is largely complete for its complexity level.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'stopRecording'. The tool description adds the phrase 'Can be used to stop recording,' which is redundant with the schema's description. Beyond that, no additional parameter semantics are provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks the status of a profiling session and discovers recorded subsystems, with an optional stop recording capability. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'prepare_profiling' and 'get_performance_hotspots' by focusing on status and session management, though it could be more explicit about its unique role.

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 implies usage for checking session status and optionally stopping recording, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after starting profiling with 'prepare_profiling'). No exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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