analyze_profile

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

Annotations already convey idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds 'store JSON' as a behavioral detail, but lacks specifics on where or how storage occurs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentence with the verb upfront. However, the term 'allowed' is ambiguous and could be clearer, slightly detracting from the overall structure.

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 tool's complexity and sibling analysis tools, the description lacks usage prerequisites, storage details, and differentiation from similar tools. It leaves gaps about what 'store JSON' means and what 'allowed' implies, making it incomplete for an agent to select correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references profile formats matching the source_type enum, but does not explain the required 'path' parameter or the 'auto' default. Added value is minimal since the enum already lists these formats.

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 profiles (folded, perf-script, perf.data) and stores JSON output. It distinguishes from collection/comparison tools by focusing on analysis, but does not explicitly reference alternatives.

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 instead of siblings like analyze_benchmark or classify_hotspots. The phrase 'allowed profile' hints at restrictions but is vague, and no alternative tools or exclusions are mentioned.

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