Autoload: profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned (e.g., feeds_data array with name and file link) and confirming zero parameters, offering additional context beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first states purpose and returned data, the second provides version preference. No unnecessary information, well front-loaded.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description enumerates all key returned fields (e.g., autoload_enabled, report_email, schedule, feeds_data). The tool is simple (no parameters, read-only) and the description sufficiently covers its behavior.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description mentions 'no parameters,' which is redundant but accurate. No further parameter semantics are needed.

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 the tool returns autoload profile settings (v2, current version), listing specific fields such as autoload_enabled, report_email, schedule, and feeds_data. It distinguishes itself from v1 by noting that v2 returns feeds_data instead of the deprecated single upload_url.

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 explicitly recommends preferring v2 over v1 ('Prefer this method over autoload_get_profile (v1)'), providing clear usage guidance. It does not elaborate on when to avoid using this tool, but the preference direction is evident.

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