profile_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions recording and analyzing, but does not state side effects (e.g., file creation), resource impact (e.g., process attachment overhead), or required permissions. The ability to re-analyze an existing trace is noted but not elaborated.

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 describes action, second lists return values, third gives a usage tip. Front-loaded and efficient. Minor room for improvement in structuring parameter guidance, but overall concise.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers purpose and the re-analysis feature. However, it omits relationships between parameters (e.g., process vs. launch_path) and any prerequisites (e.g., Instruments template availability). Sufficient but not thorough.

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% with all parameter descriptions present. The description adds context about the tool's output and the trace_path reuse capability, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it 'Record[s] and analyze[s] HTTP network traffic' using a 'Network template'. Mentions specific outputs (request counts, response times, etc.) which distinguish it from sibling profiling tools like profile_cpu or profile_memory. The verb-resource pairing is precise.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings (e.g., analyze_trace). The only conditional usage hint is that trace_path can be passed to re-analyze an existing trace, but does not explain when recording vs re-analysis is appropriate or which profiling scenario calls for this tool.

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