plan_inference_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'diagnostic-only' and 'plan' framing to clarify that no profiling execution happens, but it does not describe side effects, prerequisites, or what the plan contains. 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 focused sentence with no filler and front-loads the core verb and scope. It is concise, though it could have been slightly more informative without becoming bloated.

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 output schema and annotations reduce the need for return-value and safety detail, but with five parameters and zero schema descriptions, the tool description should provide more context about inputs and when to use it. The one-line description is not enough for an agent to invoke this tool 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%, and the description names or explains none of the five parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of scenario_name, measurement_run_id, timeout_seconds, or the profiler enum choices, leaving the agent to infer from bare property names.

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 a specific action ('Build') and resource ('diagnostic-only profile plan for one managed vLLM server'), which clearly distinguishes it from run_inference_profile. It does not explicitly contrast with plan_inference_scenario or other planning siblings, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'diagnostic-only profile plan' implies this is for planning, not executing, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The intended usage is inferable rather than stated.

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