get_profile

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the values come from a user-editable markdown file, may not be normalized, and should be treated as exactly what the user intends. This gives important context about data provenance and reliability beyond the tool's name and schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states what the tool returns, the second gives verbatim-use and fallback instructions, and the third explains why the data is authoritative. The most important guidance is 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema available, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the data is, how to treat it, and what to do when a needed field is absent. No critical information 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none exist, which is appropriate. It focuses on behavior and usage instead.

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 identifies the resource ('candidate's stored facts') and the purpose of the tool: retrieving authoritative form-field values. It also differentiates from the sibling `setup_status` by explaining that missing fields should be handled elsewhere, giving an agent clear resolution.

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 tells the agent when to rely on this tool (authoritative for form fields), how to use the data (verbatim, no reformatting), and when not to infer values (call `setup_status` and ask the user instead). This is precise, actionable guidance with a named alternative.

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