drill_down

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden and adequately discloses behavior: for CPU traces it shows callers, callees, and heaviest path; for other templates it shows full details for matching rows. It also explains the 'hottest' auto-select feature. While fairly transparent, it could mention if any data is mutated or require special permissions.

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 clear main sentence, followed by bullet-like usage guidelines, and concrete examples. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no superfluous information.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the inputs and expected outputs adequately. It explains what information is returned for each template type, though it omits details like output format or error handling. Still, it is fairly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description significantly adds value by explaining that 'trace_id' comes from a previous profile tool and that 'target' can be a function name, 'hottest', or a search term, with examples. This enriches understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 explicitly states 'Navigate deeper into profiling data from a previous profile result', using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates between CPU traces and other templates, and the examples clarify the tool's scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'profile_cpu' or 'analyze_trace'.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (after obtaining a traceId from any profile_* tool) and provides context-dependent usage for CPU traces vs. other templates. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, slightly reducing clarity.

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