profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not mention potential costs, failure modes, or dependencies (e.g., volume_id required? default?). The description is adequate for a simple query but lacks depth for full transparency.

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 short sentences, no unnecessary words. First sentence states purpose and output. Second sentence gives usage example. Every word earns its place. Excellent conciseness.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists return fields (role, facts, relationships, recent activity, confidence). Input parameters are covered. It could mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., entity not found), but overall it is fairly complete for a straightforward lookup 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%, and the schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (entity and volume_id). The description adds context about entity types (person, project, etc.) but does not significantly enrich what the schema already conveys. 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?

Description clearly states it gets a structured profile for any entity type (person, project, etc.) and lists specific return fields (role, facts, relationships, recent activity, confidence). The verb 'Get' and resource 'profile' are explicit, and the examples make it easy to understand.

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?

Provides direct usage guidance with 'Use this to understand who is X? or what is project Y?', which helps the agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'get_profile' or 'get_entity', leaving some ambiguity about which tool to prefer in overlapping scenarios.

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