icf_build_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It states the tool creates a structured summary, but it does not disclose whether codes are validated, what happens with invalid or missing codes, or any rate limits or side effects. For a tool that processes input, more transparency on error handling and processing guarantees is needed.

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 concise with two short paragraphs and a clear Args/Returns section. The first sentence immediately communicates the tool's purpose, front-loading key information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 one required parameter and an existing output schema (though not shown), the description is mostly complete. It explains the input and output nature. However, the lack of behavioral transparency (e.g., error handling) slightly reduces completeness. The description adequately covers the tool's purpose for a simple build operation.

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 parameter 'codes' has 0% schema description coverage. The description adds meaning by stating 'List of ICF codes (e.g., ["b280", "d450", "e120"])', clarifying it expects an array of code strings. This goes beyond the raw schema but does not specify the exact format or constraints (e.g., valid code prefixes, case sensitivity). Examples help but are not exhaustive.

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 'Build an ICF functional profile from multiple codes' and elaborates with 'Creates a structured summary organizing multiple ICF codes by component'. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like icf_lookup or icf_search, which focus on querying or navigating codes rather than assembling a profile.

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?

The description mentions the tool is 'useful for documenting a person's functional status across body functions, structures, activities, and environmental factors', implying a use case. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide explicit alternatives among the 16 sibling tools, such as suggesting icf_lookup for single code details.

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