get_temperament_profile

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, missing opportunity to mention rate limits or response characteristics. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence effectively front-loads purpose. However, the word 'Free' is extraneous and could mislead. Still concise overall.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should clarify return format, size, or usage examples. It only lists vague categories (e.g., 'dominant emotions') without detail, leaving the agent uncertain about what the tool actually returns.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter described adequately. The description does not add additional meaning to parameters, so it relies on the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Description clearly states the tool discovers 'your emotional signature' and lists aspects like dominant emotions, recovery speed, etc. However, it includes marketing language ('Free') that is unnecessary and slightly detracts from clarity. It distinguishes from similar tools like temperament_frame by focusing on cross-session profile.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like temperament_frame or understand_your_emotions. The description does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage without explicit direction.

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