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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful fact not in the schema — that provider endpoint and API key are server-wide and therefore not per-agent inputs — but says nothing about persistence, name-collision behavior, permissions, or whether created agents are immediately runnable by run_solo.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. No filler, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the server-wide credential note is helpful. But for a 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the definition leaves an agent without enough information to populate parameters confidently or know how this interacts with update_agent/run_solo.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It implicitly explains the absence of endpoint/API-key arguments, but leaves name, role, tags, model, temperature, and max_output_tokens entirely uninterpreted (valid ranges, defaults' meaning, format of tags).

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?

"Create a reusable profile" gives a verb and a resource, but "profile" is an oblique synonym for "agent" and is not clearly differentiated from the siblings update_agent, list_agents, run_solo, and run_discussion. An agent can infer it creates an agent-like entity, but the description never uses the word "agent" or clarifies the relation to run_solo/run_discussion.

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?

No statement of when to use this vs. update_agent or list_agents, no prerequisites, no mention of what to do if an agent with the same name already exists. The only contextual hint is that provider credentials are server-wide, which is a constraint rather than usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one valuable behavioral trait — that system prompts and secrets are not exposed — which the agent could not infer otherwise, but it says nothing about pagination, scope, or permissions for a list operation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the privacy caveat placed where it matters. No filler, though it is arguably terse enough to leave gaps.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and there are no parameters to document. What remains missing is any guidance on when to call it relative to the run/create/update siblings, which leaves the definition only minimally viable.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 verb 'List' is clear, but the resource named is 'profiles' while the tool is named list_agents, leaving the agent to infer they are the same objects. It provides no differentiation from the sibling tools (create_agent, update_agent, run_solo, run_discussion), though the read/list nature is implied.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the sibling create/update/run tools. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List'.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the run is 'bounded' and that the token limit spans the entire discussion rather than a single agent's output, but says nothing about cost, latency, whether the run is idempotent, or what control the caller retains mid-run.

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?

Roughly 50 words, front-loaded with the core action, then the ordering constraints. The hard line breaks make it slightly choppier than needed, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

Run a bounded multi-agent discussion with an independent judge. Provide at least two participant names; `judge` can be omitted if a profile with role `judge` exists. The token limit applies to generated completion tokens across the whole discussion. Missing: what `max_rounds` controls and when to prefer this over run_solo.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the `agents` minimum (two), the `judge` omission fallback, and the scope of `max_output_tokens`, but leaves `task` and `max_rounds` entirely unexplained — 2 of 5 parameters remain pure guesswork.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run a bounded multi-agent discussion with an independent judge'), which is clearly distinguishable from the agent-CRUD siblings. It stops short of naming run_solo as the contrasting one-on-one alternative, so the multi-agent framing does the separation implicitly.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions in 'Provide at least two participant names' and the judge-omission rule, which is real conditional guidance. However it never says when to pick this tool over run_solo, nor what kinds of tasks warrant a multi-agent debate versus a single run.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value: workspace tool access is gated on working_dir/workspace_path, plus heartbeat reporting and inactivity watchdog protection. However, it omits critical operational traits such as whether the call blocks until completion, what happens when the watchdog fires or max_steps is hit, and any auth or cost implications of launching an autonomous agent.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The conditional workspace detail is placed immediately after the purpose statement, which is good ordering, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a complex 9-parameter autonomous-execution tool with zero annotation coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid about blocking behavior, timeout outcomes, and the task/prompt/agent parameter relationships.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantic effect of working_dir/workspace_path (agent gains file and shell tools) but says nothing about task vs. prompt, agent selection, max_steps, max_output_tokens, heartbeat_interval_seconds, or inactivity_timeout_seconds, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run one agent to execute a task.' The phrase 'one agent' implicitly contrasts with the multi-agent sibling run_discussion, but the description never names that alternative, so an agent must infer the distinction from the tool name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of run_discussion as the alternative for multi-agent work. The only conditional offered ('if working_dir is provided...') describes a behavioral effect of a parameter rather than when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key non-obvious trait: omitted fields remain unchanged (partial update, not replace). It still omits whether changes are reversible, what auth is needed, and whether the required "name" is an identifier that renames the agent or just a lookup key.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action first and the partial-update constraint second; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 7-parameter, zero-coverage mutation tool with no annotations the description is too thin. Parameter intent and the semantics of the required "name" field are 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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. It says nothing about role, tags, model, temperature, system_prompt, or max_output_tokens, nor does it clarify why "name" is required while everything else is optional.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update fields on an existing") and describes the mutation style, so the agent can distinguish it from create_agent. However, it calls the resource a "profile" while the tool name and siblings use "agent", and it never names an alternative tool, so the sibling distinction is only inferable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus create_agent or list_agents, and no prerequisites (e.g., the agent must already exist, permissions required) are stated. The partial-update behavior implies an edit path but the description leaves all routing to inference.

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