swu_collection_combo_profile

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects and output behavior. It transparently explains that refresh=true recomputes from scratch, lists the enumerated package types, and specifies the 'live' threshold (≥4 enablers + ≥2 payoffs), which exceeds typical tool descriptions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then enumerating output details and a single parameter. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the description already covers the main purpose, output categories, live thresholds, and parameter behavior, the description fully equips an agent. It also aligns with the sibling tools by referencing the 'loaded collection' concept.

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 only parameter (refresh) has 0% schema coverage, but the description gives it explicit meaning: 'Pass refresh=true to recompute from scratch.' This fully explains the parameter's effect and implies the default is a cached/non-recomputed result.

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 ('Profile') and identifies the resource ('loaded collection') with a distinct analytical focus ('combo-package density'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like swu_collection_summary by the specialized combo enabler/payoff counting.

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 clearly implies the tool is for analyzing combo potential within an already-loaded collection. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specific use case ('combo-package density') and the refresh parameter provide enough contextual guidance.

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