tracy_diff_captures

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by explaining the meaning of negative delta ('faster') and listing the return categories. It does not contradict the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and provides useful behavioral details.

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 concise and well-structured: a purpose line, a line about delta meaning, a list of return categories, and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 covers purpose, parameters, and return categories adequately. However, it could be improved by mentioning error handling or invalid capture IDs, though the output schema likely covers return types.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes an Args section that explains each parameter's purpose (e.g., base_id/new_id are capture IDs, metric options, top_n max rows). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 diffs two captures by function to validate an optimization, and lists the output categories (improved/regressed/added/removed). It is distinct from siblings like tracy_list_captures and tracy_get_function_costs, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage for validating optimizations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for a single capture, use tracy_get_function_costs). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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