Profile ACS scripts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs 'acsprofile' and returns stats, but omits whether it is read-only, requires a specific instance, or has side effects. This lack of transparency makes it hard to anticipate operational impact.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and output. It contains no filler or redundant wording, making it easily parseable.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must provide enough context to use the tool correctly. It gives a high-level return description but omits parameter meanings, exact output format, and any usage prerequisites, leaving significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It lists metrics ('total instructions, runs, avg/min/max') that align with the sort enum, but does not explicitly explain 'sort', 'limit', or 'instance'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's raw enum and integer types.

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's action ('Run acsprofile') and the resource ('per-script/function execution stats'), with specific metrics listed. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scripts or get_acs_var, which serve different purposes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without any context for selection, such as prerequisite conditions or comparisons to related tools like profile_window.

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