native-profiler-analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it parses trace files, returns a structured markdown report with severity indicators, tables, and suggestions. It also explains the post-report interaction flow and failure condition (missing native-profiler-stop). No contradictions.

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 well-structured and efficient: it opens with the main purpose, then details per platform, return format, usage instructions, prerequisite, and failure condition. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core function.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description covers functionality, platforms, return type, usage flow, prerequisite, and failure condition. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though minor details like timeouts or size limits are absent.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter device_id with a clear description. The tool description adds no further parameter details, but the baseline is appropriate given schema completeness. The description's value comes from usage context, not parameter elaboration.

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 analyzes exported native trace data and returns an LLM-optimized markdown report. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing platform-specific behaviors (iOS XML vs Android Perfetto) and mentions follow-up tools like profiler-stack-query.

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 explicitly instructs to call native-profiler-stop first to export trace data, states the tool fails otherwise, and advises using it when needing to interpret a completed recording. It also guides the agent to ask the user about next steps (drill-down or fixes).

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