summarize_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose safety and side effects. It only says 'Summarize' without clarifying whether it is read-only, what operations it performs on the directory, or how results are presented. This leaves the agent without key behavioral context.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Summarize', and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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 low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and parameter. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and explicit usage guidance, making it minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema already thoroughly documents the single parameter 'run_dir', including path types. The description adds that the directory contains results.json and anomalies, which aligns with the schema but does not extend it significantly.

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 uses the specific verb 'summarize' and names the resource 'pypto-profiling campaign directory', with concrete contents (results.json, anomalies). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on code, tasks, and repositories.

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 tool's purpose clearly implies when to use it (whenever a profiling campaign summary is needed), and no sibling offers a similar function. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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