Profile Overlap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not mention behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, pagination, or result format. The description only states the action, leaving agents with no insight into side effects or constraints.

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 extremely concise at 6 words, but this brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It does not use the front-loaded structure effectively, and every word does not earn its place when critical information about parameters and behavior is missing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks any information about parameters, return values, pagination, or how it relates to sibling tools. The agent cannot properly invoke the tool based on this description alone.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters. Parameters like 'to', 'from', 'detail', 'groupBy' remain completely undocumented, forcing agents to guess their meaning and usage.

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 'Find quality profiles with identical quality sets' specifies the verb 'Find', the resource 'quality profiles', and the condition 'identical quality sets'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'redundant_quality_profiles' and 'clone_quality_profile'. However, the meaning of 'quality sets' is not defined, which could cause ambiguity for unfamiliar agents.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'get_quality_profiles', 'clone_quality_profile', and 'redundant_quality_profiles', the agent has no information about when this tool is preferred or what prerequisites exist.

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