whois

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape (a dict augmented with recent_commits when requested) and the conditional behavior of include_recent_commits. It omits anything about read-only/idempotency, permissions, or auth implications (e.g., what registration_token does), leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into Discovery/Parameters/Returns sections that each add value. It is somewhat long, and the Returns section partially duplicates the output schema, but nothing is egregiously wasteful.

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?

The tool is a read-style profile lookup with an output schema present, so return values need not be spelled out (and are anyway). Discovery guidance and commit-option behavior make it largely self-sufficient; the residual gap is the undocumented format and registration_token parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add real meaning for the core parameters: project_key, agent_name (with a discovery pointer), include_recent_commits, and commit_limit semantics are all explained. It still leaves two parameters (format and registration_token) undocumented, so it is not fully complete.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource ('Return enriched profile details for an agent, optionally including recent archive commits'), and the Discovery section explicitly warns that agent names are NOT program or user names, disambiguating it from siblings. An agent can tell this apart from fetch_summary or list_window_identities without opening any schema.

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 operational context for discovery via resource://agents/{project_key} and clarifies the identity-space constraint. However, it never states when to prefer this over adjacent siblings like fetch_summary or list_window_identities, so it lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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