my_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get') but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or whether it has side effects. The lack of explicit safety claims is a minor gap.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and is easy to scan, achieving high efficiency.

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 simple tool with two optional boolean parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. It could be considered complete for this level of complexity, though mentioning the output structure (e.g., 'returns a profile object') would be slightly better.

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?

Both parameters have clear descriptions in the input schema, covering 100% of schema documentation. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that the profile includes memory statistics and rule summary. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: getting a complete view of the user's identity, listing specific components like memory statistics and rule summary. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CarryMem identity'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_memory_profile', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 includes a usage hint ('Use this to understand what CarryMem knows about you'), which provides context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, such as 'recall_memories' for specific memory retrieval.

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