start_cpu_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that profiling is started, but omits side effects (e.g., performance overhead, limitation of one concurrent profile) and does not indicate if the operation is destructive or reversible.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: first sentence states purpose and target, second sentence links to the paired tool. Every word 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description effectively covers the start operation: what it does, parameter origins, and how to obtain results via 'stop_cpu_profile'. It is complete for its role.

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 has 100% description coverage, and the description adds valuable context for each parameter: pageId is explained as from 'list_pages' or 'main', sessionId as from 'launch_app'. This goes well beyond the schema labels.

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?

Description clearly states the tool starts CPU profiling on the main process or a renderer page. It specifies the verb 'Start', the resource 'CPU profiling', and the target scope, distinguishing it from its inferred sibling 'stop_cpu_profile'.

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?

Description explicitly says to call 'stop_cpu_profile' to collect the result, providing a clear usage flow. It does not, however, compare this tool to other performance-related siblings like 'get_process_metrics' or 'get_heap_snapshot' to guide when to use profiling versus metrics.

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