extract_node_cpu_prof

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety profile, so the description carries the full burden. 'Bounded evidence' hints at a constrained extraction behavior, but the description does not disclose side effects, whether artifacts are created, required prior steps, or what 'bounded' means in practice.

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 no wasted words and front-loads the key action. It is appropriately short for a one-parameter tool, though 'bounded evidence' could use a brief clarifying phrase.

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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the description lacks sibling differentiation, usage guidance, behavioral details, and parameter context. For a tool in a large family of extract_* tools, this is too sparse to be considered complete.

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% and the description does not mention run_id or explain how it maps to the Node/V8 CPU profile. Although the parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a specific verb ('extract'), a resource ('Node/V8 CPU profile'), and a scope ('bounded evidence'), which distinguishes it from sibling extract_heap_prof by profile type. The term 'bounded evidence' is somewhat jargon-heavy, but the core purpose is understandable.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling extract_* tools. The resource type implies a context, but there are no explicit alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer selection 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.