get_function_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'for a function name substring' (implying partial matching) and returns multiple profile components, but does not state whether it is a read-only operation, whether data could be stale, what format the response takes, or any side effects. The lack of detail on invocation behavior (e.g., if it modifies state, requires authentication) is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence—front-loaded with the main purpose (Return aggregate, callers, callees, and hot paths) and ending with the search qualifier ('for a function name substring'). No wasted words, but slightly more detail on how the substring matching behaves could improve it without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 parameters, 2 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'key' or 'metric' are, how the substring search works (e.g., case sensitivity, wildcards), what the return format looks like, or any usage prerequisites. The description is too brief for the tool's richness and lacks critical context for correct agent invocation.

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 low (25%), meaning the description must compensate for the 6 parameters without inline schema documentation. The description does not add meaning for any of the 8 parameters—it lists output components (aggregate, callers, callees, hot paths) but these are not parameters. The description adds no extra value over the schema for key, limit, metric, spxKey, baseUrl, timeoutMs, maxPathDepth, or functionQuery. Since coverage is low, a score of 3 is generous; the description fails to explain what key or metric mean or how functionQuery pattern matching works.

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 phrase 'Return aggregate, callers, callees, and hot paths' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a function name substring'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_hot_paths by mentioning multiple profile components (aggregate, callers, callees) rather than just hot paths.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_hot_paths, profile_url, or analyze_report. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing SPX profile), context for using the substring-based functionQuery, or when one might prefer a sibling tool.

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