profile_get_set

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

The annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructive=false, and idempotent=true; the description adds that the knobs are sealed and that get/set returns a value. It does not describe set-side effects such as validation, persistence, or deferred knob behavior, but the annotations carry the core safety profile.

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 sentence plus a compact clause, with each component earning its place: purpose, knob inventory, operation mode, and return behavior. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 3 parameters, an output schema, and complete schema coverage, this description is sufficient: it states the resource, operation, knob list, and return. It could mention error cases or dynamic/deferred knob behavior, but the schema and annotations already cover much of the operational context.

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 schema already documents operation, knob, and value with rich details, including 'get' with no knob returns all live+deferred values and set requires both fields. The tool description adds no new parameter detail, so the baseline score 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 'Read or write a profile knob' and names the two operations, get and set. It further specifies the exact sealed knob set (9 AUTIST + wake_depth), which makes the purpose concrete and distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools.

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 gives clear context that the tool is used to access/update profile knobs and that 'operation' selects read vs write. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the tool's domain is narrow enough that no sibling overlap is apparent.

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