Eight Sleep profile get

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context: the exact file location, the fields it surfaces, and how downstream tools use it. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it does not describe failure modes or output-format behavior beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and resource. 'Read-only' is somewhat redundant with the annotations, but the overall structure is easy to scan and every remaining sentence adds information about contents or usage.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the resource, path, contents, and downstream purpose, while the schema covers response_format. It could be stronger on when to choose this instead of other get_* siblings, but it is substantially 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?

Schema-description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the response_format parameter. However, response_format is fully defined by its enum and default in the schema, so the paramer is self-explanatory. The description adds no parameter-level meaning but the schema carries the load adequately for this single optional parameter.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('shared Delx Wellness profile (~/.delx-wellness/profile.json)'), and lists the data it surfaces (sleep window, age, goals, devices). It also distinguishes itself from profile_update by emphasizing read-only and from user/device getters by calling out the shared 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?

It identifies downstream consumers (eight_sleep_nightly_summary, bedtime experiments) and implies when the profile data is needed, but it does not explicitly specify when to prefer this over siblings like eight_sleep_get_me or eight_sleep_get_user, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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