speaker_profile_get

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Read' with no elaboration on return format, error behavior for a missing id, or whether 'home' affects the result. For a read operation the agent can only assume a read-only, possibly unhelpfully vague profile is returned. This is a minimal disclosure with no annotations to back it up.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler words — every token earns its place. It is slightly under-specified, but as conciseness alone it is near-ideal, with the purpose placed at the start.

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 2-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned, what 'home' means, and the significance of the id pattern. It does none of this, leaving the agent short of the context needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The 'id' and 'home' fields get no semantics or usage hints beyond their raw schema types, so an agent cannot determine what values to supply or what 'home' changes. This is the weakest dimension.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a named resource ('workspace speaker profile'), which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from the save-family siblings (speaker_profile_save, _plan, _execute). However, it doesn't explain what a speaker profile contains or how it relates to the many rew/audio read tools, so an agent must infer the resource's scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as speaker_profile_save or other read/status tools in the large sibling set. It states only what the tool does, not when it is the right choice or when it is not.

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