memory_profile

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

With no annotations at all, the description has to carry the behavioral load, and it does imply read-only semantics via 读取 and states the two classes of content returned. However, it is silent on what happens when scope is omitted (global vs. default user), whether anything is mutated or cached, and how large or paginated the response is.

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?

One sentence that leads with what is read and follows with when to use it; no filler, no repetition of the name.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool this covers the essentials, but with no output schema and no annotations, the agent still cannot tell what a call without scope returns or what the statistics payload looks like. A brief note on default scoping behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, including a description on the nested scope object, so the schema already does the parameter work and baseline 3 applies. The description never mentions the scope parameter or its user/agent/tenant/session dimensions, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 pairs a specific verb (读取/read) with two named resources (用户画像块 / user profile blocks and 记忆库统计 / memory store statistics), which clearly separates it from siblings like memory_search or agent_recall that query individual memories. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the scope of what it returns is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context — '适合在会话开始时加载' (best loaded at session start) — which tells the agent this is a bootstrap/priming call rather than an on-demand query. It does not name exclusions or point to a sibling for the non-session-start case, so it falls short of a 5.

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