profile_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions recording and analyzing, but does not specify side effects (e.g., whether the tool modifies system state, requires special permissions, or has performance impact). The re-analysis mode is a positive detail, but overall transparency is low.

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 extremely concise: three sentences that cover the core action, return values, and a key usage hint. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is well-structured 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential workflow but lacks detail on the exact format or categories of the return value. Terms like 'largest allocators' are vague. The absence of output schema means the description should offer more completeness, but it remains minimal.

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?

The input schema covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that trace_path skips the recording step, which is a key behavioral nuance not obvious from the schema alone. This slightly exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 'Record and analyze memory allocations' with a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like profile_cpu or profile_energy by focusing solely on memory. The mention of returning 'Allocation counts by category, total memory, largest allocators' further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 on two usage modes: recording a new trace (via process/launch_path etc.) or re-analyzing an existing trace via the trace_path parameter. This helps agents decide when to pass parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives (e.g., profile_leaks).

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