get_profile

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 implicitly signals a read-only operation via 'Get' and usefully describes what the profile contains, but does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or whether the data is live or cached. Some behavioral context is present, but key traits are missing.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, includes a clarifying example scope, and has zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the tool's purpose and return contents. It lacks explicit response format or error behavior, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, and the single parameter 'hostname' already includes an example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Get') and clear resource ('site profile'), with qualifiers ('by hostname') and a parenthetical listing the profile contents (voice, topics, audience, style guide). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools like get_source or get_article.

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?

Usage is implied: when you need a site profile for a given hostname, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for an AI agent navigating many similar get_* tools.

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