jaeger_test_profile

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating operations are ranked by descending total wall time. This goes beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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?

Two sentences with the main action in the first and ranking behavior in the second—no filler or redundancy. The description is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a read-only aggregation tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description provides the core behavior and ranking detail. It is complete enough, though it could benefit from clarifying when to prefer this over sibling analysis tools, which is already penalized in other dimensions.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with clear explanations (tags, limit, service, lookback_hours), so the description needn't add details. It only references 'tag query' which aligns with the tags parameter, adding no extra value beyond the schema.

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 aggregates per-operation latency hotspots across traces matching a tag query, using specific terminology ('per-operation', 'latency hotspots', 'ranked by total wall time') that distinguishes it from siblings like jaeger_search_traces or jaeger_span_statistics.

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 versus the 14 sibling tools. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description.

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