memoryos_get_global_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the operation is a read-only fetch of public data, which is useful, but it does not mention behavior on missing IDs, response shape, or any access constraints.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is concise while still conveying the core purpose of the tool.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, this description is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotation context, it leaves out return details and error behavior. An agent could invoke it correctly, but would have limited expectations about the response.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the required agent_id parameter at all. The sole parameter must be understood purely from its name, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 specific action ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('public global agent profile'), clearly identifying what the tool returns. It is more specific than simply restating the tool name, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling profile tools like memoryos_get_edtech_profile.

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 qualifier 'public global agent profile' implies when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer. The usage context is inferable, not stated.

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