profiler-combined-report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method (wall-clock time alignment), output format (markdown report), and behavior on failure (fails if prerequisites not met). No contradictory annotation exists.

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, well-organized, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes value—purpose, method, prerequisites, usage context, output, and failure condition—without redundancy.

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 fully covers what the tool does, its prerequisites, its output, and its failure modes. For a tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, this is complete and sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema fully documents the parameters.

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's purpose: generating a cross-correlated report combining React Profiler and native profiler data. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifically combining both data sources and mapping native hangs to React commits.

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 prerequisites (both profiler analyze tools must have been called first), when to use it (when both profilers ran in parallel on the same session), and failure conditions. This provides clear guidance on proper usage.

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