get_profile__id__cookies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Find cookies of profile' suggests a read-only operation but does not specify if it requires authentication, returns all cookies or a subset, includes metadata (e.g., expiration dates), or handles errors (e.g., invalid profile IDs). It lacks details on rate limits, data format, or any side effects, leaving the agent with minimal behavioral insight.

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 'Find cookies of profile' is extremely concise—a single phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. While brevity risks underspecification, every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's intent without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (involving profile data retrieval), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is highly incomplete. It does not address what 'cookies' entail, the return format, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool that likely interacts with sensitive data (cookies), this minimal description is inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.

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 input schema has 1 required parameter ('id') with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description does not add any parameter details—it does not explain what 'id' represents (e.g., a profile identifier, numeric vs. string format) or how it relates to finding cookies. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving parameters largely 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?

The description 'Find cookies of profile' clearly states the action (find) and resource (cookies of profile), establishing a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'cookies' refers to (e.g., browser cookies, authentication tokens) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_profile__id_' or 'get_profile_v2', which might retrieve other profile data. The purpose is understandable but vague in scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid profile ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_profile__id_' (which might retrieve general profile info) or 'post_profile__id__cookies' (which might add cookies). Usage is implied only by the tool name, with no explicit context or recommendations.

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