accelo_get_profile_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description says nothing about permissions, what object_type values are valid, error behavior, or return shape. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block. No padding or redundancy, though the Args formatting is bare-bones.

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 simple 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the basics but omits anything about valid object types, the relationship to sibling profile/extension tools, and return behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does document all three parameters. It gives examples for object_type ('companies', 'issues') and clarifies object_id, but 'fields: Additional fields to return' is vague and adds little semantic value beyond the schema's type hints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get profile field values for a specific object.' This is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from siblings like accelo_list_profile_fields or accelo_set_profile_value. However, it doesn't explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The agent is left to infer that this fetches (vs. lists fields or sets values) from the verb alone, with no conditions or exclusions to route between the several profile/extension-related siblings.

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