get_user_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses output contents, sparse-data behavior, persona-related conditional payloads, byte-identical backward compatibility, and the fact that persona suggestions are never auto-enabled. This is unusually transparent.

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 primary purpose is front-loaded, and conditional details are organized into readable paragraphs. The description is fairly long, but nearly every sentence adds distinct behavioral information an agent needs; little is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation support, so the description must stand alone. It covers payload fields, mood signal structure, precedence, persona variants, optional suggestion behavior, and the only parameter. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret its result.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and only provides type/default for repo_path. The description compensates with a concise, meaningful definition: 'optional absolute path to the target repository.' It could say more about behavior when omitted, but the optional-path semantics are clear.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Return the user's interaction style profile for Claude to adapt its responses.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on interaction-style calibration rather than memory retrieval, search, or org context.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Call this at the start of a session to calibrate response style.' It also explains precedence rules for how the profile should be applied. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but it provides clear enough usage context.

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