get_profile

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

The annotations establish read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description genuinely adds behavioral value: it discloses the presentFields list and, crucially, warns that an absent field must not be interpreted as a negative value. This semantic caveat goes well beyond annotation signals and helps the agent avoid a dangerous misinterpretation.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the resource scope, the return shape, and the semantic caveat. No fluff, no redundancy, minimum well-organized and front-loaded.

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?

With no params and no output schema, the description correctly explains both what the returned fields are and what the extra presentFields list means. The 'absent does not equal none' caveat closes the main path for user surprise/misuse. Nothing required to call or interpret this tool is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is no schema coverage burden. The description correctly focuses on the return payload, which is the only remaining semantic surface. It receives a baseline 4 for handling the zero-parameter case well.

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 a specific action ('get') and a clear resource ('health-profile.json' shared context fields), and distinguishes that resource from sibling tools by spelling out exactly what data is returned (conditions, medications, goals, allergies, notes). No ambiguity about what the tool operates on.

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 clearly defines the narrow scope—context fields explicitly opted into sharing—so an agent can infer when this tool is relevant. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly contrast it with sibling tools such as get_health_metrics or get_cycle_context. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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