stop_profiling

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 stopping profiling and retrieving results, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it terminates a session), rate limits, or what the results entail (e.g., format, timing). This is inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with active processes.

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 extremely concise ('Stop profiling and get the results')—a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core action and outcome without unnecessary elaboration.

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 implied by sibling tools (e.g., 'start_profiling', 'get_profile_stats'), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain critical aspects like what 'results' include, how profiling is defined, or interaction with related tools, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any gaps, earning a baseline score of 4 for not introducing confusion or redundancy.

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 states the tool's purpose ('Stop profiling and get the results'), which is clear but vague. It specifies the action ('stop profiling') and outcome ('get the results'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'stop' or 'stop_coverage', nor does it clarify what 'profiling' entails in this context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that profiling must be active), exclusions, or how it differs from similar tools like 'stop' or 'stop_coverage', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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