prepare_profiling

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the outcome (returns a JSON with 'jvmParameter' to add) and details parameter behaviors (e.g., maximumDuration alternative save triggers). This is reasonably transparent, though it could mention potential side effects or permissions.

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 concise, consisting of two well-structured sentences. The first sentence efficiently explains the core purpose and subsystems, and the second sentence provides actionable guidance without redundancy. Every part earns its place.

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 absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the output format. It also covers parameter behaviors and suggests next steps (check_status). However, it could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., Java process running) or the fact that the parameter must be quoted.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (delay, maximumDuration) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the behavior when maximumDuration is not specified (data saved at JVM termination or via check_status with stopRecording), which goes beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: preparing a profiling session by retrieving a JVM parameter for recording performance data with specified subsystems. It uses specific verbs ('Prepare', 'retrieving') and names the resource (JVM parameter) and subsystems, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish the tool from its siblings, though the context suggests a 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 provides minimal usage guidance: it mentions calling 'check_status' to check data availability, which gives a post-use action. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among siblings. The guidance is sufficient for basic use but not comprehensive.

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