qq_get_agent_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the file-read nature, the env-var path override (AGENTS_MD), and the intended system-prompt usage. However, it does not state what happens when the file is missing, whether results are cached across calls, or what the return value looks like — gaps that matter since there is no output schema to fill them.

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?

Three sentences, ~47 words, with clear front-loading: purpose first, then usage instruction, then configuration detail. No filler or repetition of schema facts, and every sentence earns its place.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the essential semantic ground: what it returns (the role profile), how to use it (load once as system prompt), and how to configure it (AGENTS_MD). The only omission is error-handling behavior, which is minor for a simple read tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema does no explanatory work; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful config semantics by documenting that the path is overridable via the AGENTS_MD environment variable, which is the only 'input' mechanism an agent would need to understand.

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 a specific verb ('Get') with a defined resource ('AGENTS.md role profile') and spells out its content (personality, duties, security boundaries). It clearly distinguishes this from the other QQ bridge tools (qq_send, qq_poll_inbox, etc.) by framing it as an agent self-configuration read, not a chat or inbox operation.

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 instruction 'Load it once and treat it as your system prompt while chatting through QQ' gives explicit, practical guidance on when and how to use it, which is distinctive enough among siblings. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause or named alternatives, but the one-time init framing makes the usage context clear without needing to exclude the chat/inbox siblings.

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