profile_get

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the call takes no input, it returns profile state plus "rules for how to answer," and that state is shared across every AI client and PoB Agent Edition. It does not describe what happens on a first-run/empty profile or whether the returned rules override client defaults, which keeps it below a 5.

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 directive "Read ... FIRST in every conversation" is front-loaded, followed by a compact field enumeration and one line of context. The parenthetical "(Options > Agent profile)" is mildly incidental for an agent but justifies the shared-state claim, so it roughly earns its place.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description must explain the return payload, and it does so by listing the profile fields and noting it returns answering rules. The only real gap is undefined behavior when the profile has not been configured yet.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; the baseline applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call by describing it as a pure state read.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read the player profile") and enumerates exactly what the profile contains: play mode, hardcore/softcore, league, currency, goals, experience, explanation mode, and previously explained topics. The read-only verb plus the sibling names profile_set/profile_mark_learned make the write-vs-read split unambiguous without opening any schema.

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?

"Read the player profile FIRST in every conversation" is an unusually strong, explicit timing directive that conditions the agent's whole workflow on this call. It gives no negative guidance (e.g., when a re-read is unnecessary or what to do if the profile is empty), so it stops short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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