Compare Profiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by describing the comparison behavior and the categories of results ('slower/faster', 'new/removed hotspots'), which also implies a read-only analysis operation. It does not detail error behavior or exact result ordering, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 short sentences, no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and the description is easy to parse quickly.

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 simple two-required-parameter comparison tool, the description plus complete schema covers the necessary invocation details. It explains the high-level output even without an output schema. It could marginally improve by noting it requires profiles already loaded via load_profile, but the description already says 'loaded'.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents baseProfileId, compareProfileId, and limit. The description adds only the concept of a baseline and comparison profile through side-by-side language, which is useful but does not go beyond the schema in describing parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compare') with a clear resource ('two loaded CPU profiles') and states the concrete output: slower/faster functions and new/removed hotspots. This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like get_hotspots, which focuses on a single profile.

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 phrase 'two loaded CPU profiles' clearly indicates the required precondition and typical use case: the agent should call this tool only after two profiles are loaded. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for routing.

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