Load CPU Profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It states the input formats, the action (loading from disk), and the output (profile ID). However, it does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether loading replaces an existing profile, how errors on invalid files are surfaced, or whether the profile ID is session-scoped. For a simple loader this is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, the second covers supported formats and the return value. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, no output schema. The description explains the parameter, supported file types, and the return value (a profile ID), which is enough for correct invocation. It could briefly mention its relationship to the sibling tools, but the 'for use with other tools' hint already covers the basic workflow.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the filePath parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by clarifying the two supported file types (.cpuprofile and Chrome DevTools Trace JSON), which directly refines the meaning of the filePath parameter beyond what the schema alone states.

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 verb ('Parse and load'), resource ('V8/Chrome CPU profile from disk'), and the tool's role as the entry point for the sibling analysis tools. The line 'Returns a profile ID for use with other tools' differentiates it from the analytical siblings like get_hotspots and compare_profiles, which would consume that ID rather than load files.

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 provides clear context that this tool is to be used first to load a profile and obtain an ID for subsequent tools. It does not, however, explicitly name any sibling alternatives or list exclusions, such as when to use how_to_collect instead. The implied workflow is strong but not fully explicit.

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