Cycle profile get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the file location, that it is shared, and that it exposes sex_or_gender_context. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 return behavior, followed by the key output field and purpose. 'Read-only' is slightly redundant with the annotations, but it is harmless and the overall structure is efficient.

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?

This is a simple optional-parameter getter, and the description is sufficient: it names the exact profile file, the key surfaced field, and the consumer decision it supports. The only parameter is fully documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%: privacy_mode is fully described with its enum values. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Returns') and names the exact resource ('shared Delx Wellness profile (~/.delx-wellness/profile.json)'). It also states the key output field (sex_or_gender_context) and its purpose, making it clearly distinct from siblings like cycle_profile_update or cycle_onboarding.

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 clear context for when the tool matters: wellness-cycle-coach uses it to decide whether to activate phase-aware coaching. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the use case is concrete enough to guide selection.

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