tokscale_developer_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: filesystem paths are redacted (home dir → ~), scan path is redacted, and it discloses the return payload shape including a headless support flag. It stops short of describing scan scope limits or rate/performance characteristics, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusions come last, which is the right order. However the long enumeration of per-tool return fields (model mix, token pillars, cache_read_pct, session count, scan path, workspace breakdown, headless flag, summary keys) partly duplicates what the output schema already provides, so some sentences do not fully earn their place.

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 zero parameters, an output schema already present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description carries everything an agent needs: scope, redaction behavior, and routing to the correct sibling. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 the baseline is 4. The schema description ('No parameters. Profiles all locally-detected AI tools via tokscale.') is fully consistent with the description and nothing about parameter semantics is missing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — a per-developer usage profile across all 20+ AI tools detected by tokscale — and enumerates the dimensions it covers. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (tokscale_cost_analysis), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('Use this to understand your full AI tool footprint — which tools you use, which models per tool, and how your usage is distributed') and an explicit when-not with the named alternative ('Do NOT use this for cost-only analysis — use tokscale_cost_analysis'). Nothing is left to inference.

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