Get Profile Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by revealing special truncation behavior for large profiles, the 0.1% filter threshold, and the fallback behavior of listing all profiles when no ID is supplied. It does not mention error cases or auth requirements, but for a read-only summary tool the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 three sentences with no filler. The main output contents are front-loaded, followed by important size-limiting behavior, and then the no-ID fallback. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains the return contents and special behaviors well. It covers optional parameters indirectly via the profileId fallback and large-profile truncation behavior. It could mention what happens with an invalid profile ID or the exact output format, but for this complexity level the description is largely complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces the profileId fallback behavior but adds little beyond the schema for treeDepth, which is fully documented with default, minimum, and maximum. This meets the baseline for a well-covered schema without adding extra semantic value.

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 returns an overview of a loaded profile and enumerates the specific contents: duration, sample count, top-level call tree, and idle time percentage. It is specific about the resource and action, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_hotspots, which could also expose profile timing data.

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 implies when to use the tool: when an overview or summary of a loaded profile is needed, and when no profile ID is provided to list loaded profiles. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over siblings such as get_hotspots or compare_profiles, and no exclusion criteria are stated.

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