get_query_profile

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 reveals that the tool saves the profile to a local file and returns summary information, which are important behavioral traits beyond basic functionality. However, it doesn't cover aspects like error handling, performance characteristics, or whether this operation is read-only or has side effects.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second explains the output's utility. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with the most critical 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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and moderate complexity (it performs file operations and returns summary information), the description provides basic completeness but lacks details about the return format, file location, or error conditions. It's adequate for understanding what the tool does but leaves gaps for practical implementation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the query_id parameter fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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's purpose: '获取指定 Query ID 的执行 Profile' (get the execution profile for a specified Query ID). It specifies the action (获取/get) and resource (执行 Profile/execution profile) with the query_id parameter. However, without sibling tools for comparison, it cannot demonstrate differentiation, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It mentions that the profile file can be used for subsequent detailed analysis, but this is a feature explanation rather than usage context. There are no explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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