Get Delx Wellness Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable context: the exact file path, the set of returned fields, and a strong security guarantee ('NEVER contains OAuth tokens or API secrets'). This goes beyond annotation redundancy.

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 concise and front-loaded, with four short sentences each adding distinct value: action+path, returned fields, security guarantee, and read-only confirmation. No redundant fluff.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return value well. It lacks details about error cases (e.g., missing file) but these are not critical for a getter.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the response_format parameter. The schema itself has an enum and default, but the description fails to compensate for the missing narrative on when to use 'markdown' vs 'json'. Since the rule says low coverage requires compensation, this is a gap.

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 explicitly states the action ('Read'), the specific resource (shared Delx Wellness profile from ~/.delx-wellness/profile.json), and the returned content (preferred name, goals, devices, preferences, safety flags). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like google_health_profile_update or google_health_get_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?

The description implies usage context: when you need the user's wellness profile preferences, and clarifies it's read-only. It does not mention alternatives explicitly, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over write tools.

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