get_style_profile

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned style is 'measured outgoing-message' for 'global or user-assigned' contexts, which gives some content context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or other operational traits.

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, and the scoping distinction is stated early. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though the terseness leaves some ambiguity that could have been resolved in one additional clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The remaining gaps are usage guidance against siblings and full parameter semantics, making this minimally complete for a simple one-parameter read tool but not rich enough to resolve selection ambiguity.

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 schema has one optional parameter, 'context', with 0% description coverage. The description partially compensates by indicating that the context may be 'global or user-assigned', which helps an agent infer that a string value selects a user-assigned context while null/omission likely selects global. It does not, however, specify valid formats or examples for the user-assigned case.

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 verb ('Return') and resource ('measured outgoing-message style') with a scope modifier ('global or user-assigned context'), so the core purpose is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as get_person_style or get_persona_summary, leaving the agent to infer when this profile is the right one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_person_style or get_persona_summary, and no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when an agent should select it.

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