profile_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions sending SPX cookies and profiling a request, hinting at side effects (cookie injection). However, it does not clarify whether the request is actually executed, what happens on failure, or if the method affects behavior. The 'profile' verb is somewhat ambiguous—does it merely observe or also modify the request? Adequate but could be more 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover the 'how' without losing conciseness—currently it is lean but somewhat incomplete.

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 complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, low schema coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what a 'profile' is, what the output looks like, or how parameters like depth and metrics affect behavior. The agent needs more context to use this tool effectively, especially since there is no output schema to compensate.

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 (30%), so the description should compensate. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. The schema itself has descriptions for only 3 of 10 parameters (spxKey, baseUrl, allowCrossOrigin). The description does not explain the meaning of depth, metrics, builtins, or samplingPeriod, leaving the agent with incomplete understanding. Baseline 3 for low coverage with no added 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 states 'Profile one web request by sending SPX cookies to the target URL,' which clearly identifies the verb (profile), resource (web request), and mechanism (SPX cookies). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_reports or analyze_report, but could be more explicit about the output being a profile rather than a report.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., must have a valid SPX session) or when not to use it (e.g., for simple requests without profiling). The siblings are all report/analysis tools, so the core use case is implied but not explained.

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