get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating the data is "stored only on this computer", telling the agent this reflects local state rather than a server-side account and will not sync across machines.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and contents, then a short storage caveat. The enumerated list of profile sections is dense but each item communicates a distinct piece of returned data, so nothing is wasted.

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 parameters, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description carries the remaining burden of describing return contents, which it does thoroughly. The only gap is edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens when no profile has been saved yet), which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is a whole-profile fetch with no filtering arguments, matching the empty schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Show the player's saved profile") and then enumerates the concrete contents: owned/missing mods, items, spare items, Rivens, builds and notes. That is far more specific than the name alone and clearly separates it from write-oriented siblings like update_profile and save_build, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for locally saved profile data, with update_profile as the mutation counterpart. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no statement about what to do when no profile exists, and no routing guidance among the build-related siblings.

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