native-profiler-analyze

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses platform-specific analysis behavior, the markdown report format, severity indicators, tables, actionable suggestions, and the follow-up interaction of asking the user before deeper investigation. It could be slightly more explicit about side effects, but for an analysis tool this is adequately transparent.

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 front-loaded and logically organized, covering platform details, output format, usage condition, and follow-up workflow. There is some redundancy: 'Call native-profiler-stop first...' and 'Fails if native-profiler-stop has not been called first...' repeat the same prerequisite. This minor duplication prevents a perfect score but the description is still concise enough.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers input, platform-specific behavior, output format, prerequisite, failure mode, and recommended next action. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to use the tool, invoke it correctly, and handle the resulting markdown report appropriately.

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%, and the single device_id parameter is already well described with its source: 'Target device id from list-devices (iOS UDID or Android serial).' The main description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Therefore the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Analyze exported native trace data and return an LLM-optimized markdown report.' It further specifies iOS XML parsing and Android Perfetto querying, giving clear resource and platform scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like profiler-stack-query and react-profiler-analyze.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you need to interpret a completed native profiling recording.' It also gives a prerequisite and failure condition: 'Call native-profiler-stop first' and 'Fails if native-profiler-stop has not been called first.' The reference to profiler-stack-query as a downstream drill-down option adds useful usage context.

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