profile_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It says 'lightweight' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires specific permissions, or how it affects the scene. The lack of any mention of return values or side effects leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 core action. It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to parse. While it is sparse, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it misses opportunities to embed needed context.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain what the collected counters include, what the return format is, or what the 'frames' parameter controls. For a profiling tool, this incomplete context could lead to misuse or incorrect expectations, making it insufficiently complete for the tool's 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 description coverage is only 33% (only projectPath is described). The description 'Collect lightweight frame and memory counters for a scene' does not clarify the meaning of 'frames' (e.g., number of frames to sample) or 'scenePath' (the target scene). It fails to compensate for the schema gaps, leaving parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('frame and memory counters for a scene'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It is specific enough to distinguish from other tools like capture_screenshot or get_game_context, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings. The purpose is clear, but could mention that it profiles performance rather than just collecting counters.

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. There is no mention of context, scenarios, or exclusions. The description is purely a functional statement without any usage direction, leaving the agent to infer when profiling is appropriate.

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