derive_project_profile

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether re-deriving features mutates the stored profile, requires permissions, or has side effects. The term 're-derive' suggests computation but leaves unclear if it writes back to storage.

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 a single 10-word sentence with no filler, achieving maximum conciseness. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description gives a basic purpose but omits usage context, behavioral side effects, and parameter details. It is minimally adequate for an agent to infer the tool's function but leaves gaps that other tools or schemas do not fill.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify project_id, but it does not mention the parameter at all. The only hint is 'existing stored project profile,' which loosely implies project_id identifies that profile.

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 uses the specific verb 're-derive' and identifies the resource ('existing stored project profile') and output ('structured features'). This clearly distinguishes it from creation/analysis tools, though it could specify which features are derived.

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 implies it is used when a project profile already exists and its features need to be recomputed, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like analyze_project or score_project_fit. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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