profiler-commit-query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does well: it explains the four query modes, states that output is a markdown table or tree, and discloses failure conditions ('Fails if react-profiler-stop has not been called or no commit data is stored'). It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but 'Query' and the output/return framing imply no mutation.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a required precondition, a compact mode list, a use-case pointer, an output summary, and a failure condition. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition or filler.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested time_range object, 4 modes, no output schema), the description provides a complete picture: purpose, preconditions, mode semantics, return type, and failure modes. It complements the 100% schema coverage well and leaves no major operational gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by explaining each mode's behavior and result shape, e.g., 'by_component: All commits where a specific component rendered, with causes and durations.' It also clarifies the mode-specific meaning of top_n through the schema description, which is reinforced conceptually by the mode list.

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 verb and resource: 'Query React commit data for iterative investigation of render performance.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on commit-level query modes (by_component, by_time_range, by_index, cascade_tree) and explicitly frames it as follow-up drilling after 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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'Requires react-profiler-stop to have been called first' and 'Use when drilling into specific components or time windows after react-profiler-analyze.' It also states failure conditions. It lacks an explicit excluded-alternative statement, but the context is sufficiently clear to guide tool selection.

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