Read the user's agent history

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses two genuinely useful behaviors: results are redacted (a privacy guarantee) and numbered in parts (pagination). It leaves one gap: readOnlyHint=false suggests some state may be written (likely part caching), but the description never explains that, and it does not state how an agent knows when the parts are exhausted.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler; the parenthetical scope list is dense but earns its place. Slightly overloaded by combining scope, redaction, pagination, and the profile-writing hint in one breath.

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, the description must carry return-value burden: it says results are redacted, numbered, and split into parts, but does not describe the shape of what comes back or how completion across parts is signalled. The unexplained readOnlyHint=false also leaves the agent without a full behavioral picture for a three-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines days, part, and level. The description reinforces only the level semantics ('at level L2, the user's own session messages') and hints at part usage via 'long results come in parts'; it adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Collect' plus a concrete resource ('what the user's local coding agents know') and an enumeration of what that includes (installed tools, memory files, session messages at L2) makes the purpose unambiguous. It implicitly positions itself as the evidence-gathering step feeding save_profile, though it never names that sibling 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: the phrase 'with instructions for writing a profile' hints this is the read step before profile creation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among save_profile/show_profile/find_candidates. An agent must infer the pipeline position from the sibling list.

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