plur_profile

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

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds that results are cached for 24 hours, which is a useful behavioral detail. No contradictions with annotations. It could further explain whether generation triggers any side effects, but overall it is transparent.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core action. While it lacks structured details like bullet points, the brevity is appropriate for a straightforward 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?

The description is adequate but misses some context given no output schema. It does not explain the format or content of the cognitive profile, which would help agents understand what to expect. For a tool with 5 parameters, additional details about when to use parameters like force_regenerate would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable. 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: to generate or retrieve a cognitive profile synthesized from stored engrams. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like plur_recall or plur_meta_engrams by focusing on a narrative summary.

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 implies that the tool is for generating/retrieving a cached profile, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions caching but lacks guidance on when to force regeneration or choose this over similar tools.

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