profile_energy

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

Without annotations, the description discloses return format (scores, breakdown, thermal state), suggests physical device preference, and explains the re-analysis workflow. It does not cover potential destructive impacts or rate limits, but is generally transparent about behavior.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second lists returns, third gives usage tips. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

The description covers the tool's main function, return values, and a special mode. With no output schema, it explains outputs adequately. However, it could better differentiate from numerous sibling tools.

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 adds context for trace_path and device, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the 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 records and analyzes energy usage using Energy Log, with specific return values (scores 0-20, per-component breakdown, thermal state). It distinguishes itself from sibling profiling tools by focusing on energy and mentioning a special re-analysis mode via trace_path.

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 provides guidance: 'Best results on physical devices' and the option to pass trace_path for re-analysis. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like profile_cpu or state when not to use this tool.

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