profile_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose a real trait: LEARNING/UNSUPPORTED skills are deliberately never surfaced as competencies, so callers understand the filtering rule. However, it omits that this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered or structured, and whether anything is mutated.

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 sentence front-loads the core purpose ('what the master profile can and cannot support') and uses the colon clause to enumerate the two result categories. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the sole carrier of meaning, and it does explain the two output categories and the exclusion rule. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned data (labels, grouping, counts), which is the remaining gap for a reporting tool.

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 there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema being empty and closed ('additionalProperties: false') is consistent with the no-argument nature of the call.

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 states a concrete action and resource: return the master profile's supported/unsupported skills, breaking them into printable skills by label and items recorded as LEARNING or UNSUPPORTED. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like tailor_resume or validate_resume, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 call this versus alternatives such as tailor_resume or validate_resume, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The intended use (audit what the profile can back up) is only implied by the word 'support'.

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