get_xdebug_profile

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

The description discloses that the tool is a stub and not available, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not specify what happens when called (e.g., returns error, empty result) or any other behavioral details. With no annotations, more detail would be helpful.

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 very short—a single sentence. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and the stub caveat. However, it could be slightly clearer about the stub's implications.

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 omits critical details about stub behavior, error handling, or alternative tools. Given the tool's limited utility, the agent needs more context to decide whether to invoke it or not. No output schema is provided to compensate.

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 fully describes the requestId parameter (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantics beyond the verb 'get', so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 gets Xdebug profiling data for a request. The 'stub - not available in Clockwork' qualifier adds important context, though it introduces some ambiguity about the tool's functionality. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_xdebug_hotspots.

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 (e.g., get_xdebug_hotspots). The 'stub' hint suggests it might not work, but no explicit direction is given on how to proceed or what to use instead.

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