JProfiler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (JSON object) but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only or mutating operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and return value. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from behavioral details.

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 complexity of performance profiling tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the structure of the returned JSON, error cases, or how this tool fits into broader workflows with siblings like 'get_performance_hotspots', leaving the agent under-informed for effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' documented as 'The id of the hotspot or call tree node to be expanded'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 verb ('Expand') and resource ('performance hotspot or call tree'), specifying it returns a JSON object with back trace or children. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_performance_hotspots' (which likely lists rather than expands), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_performance_hotspots' or other profiling tools. The description implies usage for expanding nodes but doesn't specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.

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