get_taste_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (rule catalog, precedent corpus, bindings) and clarifying that it is not a calibration step. No contradictions with annotations.

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: first states what the tool does, second clarifies limitations and recommends alternative. Concise and front-loaded with no unnecessary information.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, return content, and limitations. Complete enough for correct agent invocation.

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?

Only one parameter 'name' with schema description 'Profile name.' Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not add new semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 that the tool loads a locally stored taste profile by name and returns its full rule catalog, precedent corpus, and per-project surface bindings. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_taste_interview by noting it is not a calibration step.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (to retrieve a taste profile's data) and when not to (for design work without a binding, recommending get_taste_interview instead). Also clarifies that bindings are per-surface and do not transfer.

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