get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly labels the operation as a read and lists the document sections, but it does not disclose behavior such as how the section parameter affects the response, what happens with invalid sections, or whether this returns the current/default profile.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact, useful enumeration of sections. Every line earns its place with no tautology or filler.

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 simple read tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the resource, the available sections, and the optional parameter. The main missing context is how get_profile relates to sibling retrieval tools, but that gap is accounted for in the usage dimension.

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 gives only a bare 'section' string with zero description coverage, but the description compensates with the full list of valid sections and sub-content. This gives the agent concrete meaning for the sole parameter, including values like candidate, behavioral, evaluation, and overview.

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 clear verb and resource: it reads a profile document, and enumerates the sections available. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_profile or get_star_examples, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use get_profile versus alternatives such as search_profile, get_star_examples, or update_profile_section. The verb 'Read' implies retrieval, but there is no when/when-not logic or alternative routing.

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