profile_process

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It states the tool uses perf to collect performance data, implying it executes system commands. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as requiring root privileges, impacting process performance, or whether the profiling is safe and non-destructive. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about operational impacts.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and method, and the second provides an essential prerequisite. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, and there is no wasted text.

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 main purpose and a key prerequisite but lacks details on output behavior (e.g., where data is stored, how to generate flame graphs) and operational constraints (e.g., permissions, process impact). Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, active profiling), more context would be beneficial, but the description 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional semantic value about the parameters (e.g., pid, duration, frequency, event) beyond what the schema provides. Thus, the description meets baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 profiles a specific process using perf to collect performance data for flame graph generation. This is a specific verb+resource combination and stands out from sibling tools that are all 'get_*' metrics tools, which retrieve existing data.

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 mentions the prerequisite that the perf tool must be installed, which is important context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tools are all read-only data retrieval, so the usage context is clear, but the lack of exclusion guidance prevents a 5.

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