profile_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does signal read-only intent via 'Read this first' and discloses what the payload contains. It does not describe the response shape (raw YAML text vs. parsed structure), size, or what happens if no profile exists yet, which are real gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most actionable instruction ('Read this first') is placed at the end where it lands hardest. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are covered: what the resource is, what categories of data it holds, and when to call it. Only the concrete return format is left unspecified, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description usefully clarifies that the entire knowledge base is returned without any filter arguments.

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 names the specific resource (the user's knowledge base, profile.yaml) and its contents (facts, preferences, search settings), and 'Read this first' makes the retrieval direction explicit. It is clearly distinguishable from the profile_update/profile_add_item/profile_remove_item siblings, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'reads'.

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?

'Read this first' gives an unambiguous ordering instruction that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to every other tool. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating exclusions, but for a foundational read tool the entry-point guidance is strong.

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