profile_jfr_network

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It implies a read-only analysis but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur, nor does it address permissions or side effects. The description adds some context (e.g., top endpoints, stack hotspots) but leaves gaps in behavioral completeness.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second provides a conditional hint. Every word is necessary and earns its place.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should be more complete. It lacks details on return format, error handling, and does not fully explain 'emptyEvents' context. It covers the key points but leaves some gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that filepath accepts shortcuts like 'new_profile' and 'old_profile', which goes beyond the schema description, and clarifies that topN is for endpoints and methods.

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 that the tool summarizes JDK socket I/O from .jfr files, listing specific events (jdk.SocketRead, jdk.SocketWrite) and outputs like event counts, bytes, top endpoints, and stack hotspots. This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like profile_jfr_file_io.

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 specifies prerequisites (recording must include events via custom .jfc or preset) and provides an alternative action (use start_profiling if emptyEvents). This gives clear when-to-use and fallback guidance, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use compared to siblings.

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