get_inventory

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile via readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, and the trailing 'Read-only' largely repeats that. However, the description adds genuine behavioral value by describing the return payload (levels, skills grouped by level, per-skill years/last_used_year/evidence/aliases/notes), which matters because no output schema exists. No permissions, limits, or error behavior are discussed, keeping it below 5.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then return shape. The final 'Read-only' clause is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, a minor amount of wasted space.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool this is fully adequate: it covers purpose, timing, sibling routing, and enumerates the returned structure in place of the missing output schema. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the profile path and its default resolution. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the person's skill inventory') and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling that handles CV content (list_variants). An agent can select this tool 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?

Gives explicit timing ('at the start of a session and before proposing skill changes') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('for CV content (roles, bullets, variants) use list_variants instead'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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