copalibre_profile_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the no-token auth requirement and, more valuably, that the returned schema is byte-identical to what validation and installation check against — a consistency guarantee an agent cannot infer from the schema. It does not describe response size or whether the field explanations are inline or a separate section, but for a read-only tool the safety profile is adequately clear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the return value and then the usage trigger; nothing is repeated from the title or the schema. The 'not just its shape' clause earns its place by telling the agent the output is richer than a bare schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize what comes back, and it does: the JSON Schema plus field-by-field semantics, plus the auth posture. For a zero-parameter read tool this is enough for an agent to call it correctly without opening anything else.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter behavior the description could or should add. It correctly omits per-argument detail.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (returns the tournament profile's JSON Schema) and pins down the deliverable precisely: the schema plus a field-by-field explanation of what each declaration governs. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from copalibre_profile_validate by naming that sibling as a consumer of the same artifact.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger — 'Use this first when authoring a new tournament-profile module, before writing any JSON' — which is exactly the decision point an agent needs. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing at the neighboring copalibre_descriptor_schema for descriptor work, so no exclusions are given.

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