stop_cpu_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool writes a .cpuprofile file and returns a summary of hottest functions. However, it does not mention whether profiling must be active, side effects, or error conditions.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence states the action, the second explains the output format and file type. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 description covers the core functionality (stop, collect, output) but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior start_cpu_profile), error handling, and what happens if called without an active profiling session. Given the complexity and lack of annotations, it is minimally adequate.

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% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., that 'top' controls the number of functions in the summary). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 stops CPU profiling and collects the profile. It specifies the output (a .cpuprofile file and inline summary), distinguishing it from sibling profiling tools like start_cpu_profile or get_performance_metrics.

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, such as indicating it should follow a call to start_cpu_profile. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where this tool is inappropriate.

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