memory_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states 'View' which implies read-only, but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior, authentication needs, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 with a concise summary of the tool's purpose, followed by a clear Args list. It is efficient with no extraneous text, earning high marks for structure.

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 presence of an output schema (which explains return values), the description adequately covers the tool's inputs. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases (e.g., invalid action) and does not fully compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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?

The description adds meaning to the parameters by listing the allowed values for 'action' (stats, user, agents, skills, arc) and explaining that 'agent_id' is used only for action=agents. This compensates somewhat for 0% schema description coverage, but it could be more detailed (e.g., behavior of other actions, default behavior).

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: 'View user profile, agent scopes, ARC stats, and cached skills.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that perform other memory operations.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists the actions but does not explain use cases or when to choose this over other memory tools like memory_recall_context or memory_system_health.

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