profile_hitches

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses recording/analysis and return of hang events, but omits side effects (e.g., process attachment) or potential destructive actions. Some transparency but gaps.

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, no waste. First sentence states purpose, second lists returns, third gives usage tip. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters (none required) and no output schema, description covers purpose, returns, and a key usage tip. Lacks detail on parameter relationships and return format, but adequate for a standard profiling tool.

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% and parameters have basic descriptions. Description adds value for trace_path (re-analyze), but does not elaborate on process, launch_path, device, or duration beyond schema. Minimal added meaning.

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 animation hitches and main thread hangs, specifying the resource and action. It distinguishes from sibling profiling tools like profile_cpu.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use (during scrolling or animations) and an alternative mode (re-analyze via trace_path). Lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to siblings, but sufficient context.

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