react-profiler-cpu-summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: reads from stored cpuProfile, requires prior call to 'react-profiler-stop', returns a markdown table, and fails if prerequisites are not met. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear purpose, usage, prerequisites, and return format. It is slightly repetitive (e.g., 'do NOT call' is implied by alternatives) but every sentence adds value. Few words could be trimmed for conciseness.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value format (markdown table with self-time, total-time, location). It covers prerequisites, failure conditions, and source. Tool complexity is moderate (4 params, no output schema), and description is thorough.

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% (all 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add significant new semantics beyond the schema, except for describing the overall return format (markdown table with fields). Baseline 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 returns a raw Hermes CPU flamegraph summary with top hotspot functions by self-time. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifically naming 'react-profiler-analyze' as the alternative for broader React performance analysis.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (dedicated CPU investigation for non-React hotspots) and when not to use (normal profiling session). Recommends 'react-profiler-analyze' as alternative and lists prerequisite: call 'react-profiler-stop' first.

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