kalei_profile_model

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful facts: the API key is never stored, and the tool returns a run ID to monitor. However, it omits side effects, async behavior, duration expectations, cost implications, or what happens after the run is started.

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 description is two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core action and scope, and the second adds the key safety trait and expected return value. Every word contributes.

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 run-starting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately names the return type (run ID) and hints at the monitoring workflow, but it leaves out how to chain with kalei_run_progress or kalei_run_result, what depth choices imply in practice, and any behavioral caveats. It is minimally viable but not complete.

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 already provides full coverage of all five parameters, including enum values for depth and examples for model. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond reaffirming BYOK and model profiling, so the schema-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Start a cognitive profiling run') and the resource ('any AI model'), with a notable scope qualifier ('using your own provider API key'). It is specific enough to distinguish from result/progress tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling kalei_run_start.

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 gives context (use when you want to profile a model with your own API key) but offers no guidance on when not to use it, what prerequisites exist, or which alternative sibling tools to prefer for monitoring or retrieving results. The agent must infer this from the sibling names.

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