profile_leaks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the instrument takes periodic heap snapshots and that longer recordings improve detection. It also specifies the return value contents (object types, sizes, libraries, backtraces).

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?

Description is concise with a few sentences covering purpose, return, mechanism, and parameter hint. No fluff, but could be even tighter.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining behavior and return values. However, it does not clarify the logical relationship between process and launch_path parameters (e.g., whether one must be provided).

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 little beyond the schema: it repeats the duration recommendation and re-analysis capability already present in 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?

Description clearly states the tool records and detects memory leaks using the Leaks template. It distinguishes itself from sibling profiling tools by focusing specifically on leaks.

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?

Description mentions two usage modes (direct recording or re-analyzing existing trace) and recommends longer durations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like profile_memory.

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