profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful traits: outputs are a report path plus parsed summary, ncu mode is slow and worth narrowing, and ncu metrics returned. It omits timeout behavior, what is written to disk (out_dir), permissions/privilege needs for profiling, and failure modes.

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?

Three dense sentences with the action and return values front-loaded, then the mode tradeoff and targeting advice. No padding, though the first sentence is long and could be split for scanability.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey enough to call correctly. It does reasonably well on modes and returns, but with 7 parameters and a long-running profiling job it never covers timeout semantics, launch-count behavior, working-directory relevance, or what the parsed kernel summary actually contains structurally.

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 0% across 7 params, so the description must compensate. It explains the tool enum values (nsys/ncu), the meaning of ncu_kernel_regex, and implies cmd and the report-path/out_dir behavior, but cwd, timeout, and ncu_launch_count get no meaning at all, leaving half the surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific action (run a command under Nsight Systems/Compute) plus concrete outputs (report path, parsed kernel summary), and differentiates the two internal modes nsys vs ncu. It does not distinguish itself from sibling profiling tools like torch_trace, bench, or roofline, so an agent still has to infer which profiling sibling to pick.

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?

Gives explicit guidance inside the tool's own mode choice: nsys for per-kernel time breakdown, ncu for detailed metrics and 'much slower, so use ncu_kernel_regex to target one kernel'. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than torch_trace, bench, roofline, or top_kernels, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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