profile_xr_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is clearly read-only and safe. The description adds specific analysis areas but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects, or limitations).

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?

Description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and scope. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the list of checks could be more structured. No extraneous words.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on default behavior (all analyses run by default) and output format (just 'recommendations'). It is adequate but leaves important context unaddressed.

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 covers all 8 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add new information about parameters beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes the current scene for XR performance issues and lists specific checks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_xr_performance_metrics' by offering recommendations beyond raw metrics.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'profiler', 'get_xr_performance_metrics'). The description implies usage for performance profiling but does not state when not to use it or provide comparative context.

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