profile_swiftui

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the recording/re-analyzing behavior and the return values. However, it does not mention potential side effects like storage usage, performance impact during recording, or permissions required. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences: first defines purpose and output, second gives usage guidance. 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 tool is complex but the description covers core modes (record vs re-analyze) and return values. No output schema exists, so the return description helps. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., app must be running or launch_path needed) but overall sufficient given the rich schema.

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 5 parameters described. The description adds minimal extra meaning, mainly clarifying that trace_path skips recording. The schema already effectively documents parameters, so the description contributes little beyond the baseline.

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 it 'Record and analyze SwiftUI view performance' and lists specific return values (view body evaluation counts, excessive re-renders, duration per view). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like profile_cpu or profile_energy which target different performance aspects.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Best used while navigating through the app' and mentions alternative usage with 'trace_path' for re-analysis. No explicit exclusions but the context implies its domain is SwiftUI view profiling.

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