profile_target

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. Words like 'detect' and 'profile' strongly imply a read-only operation, and the mention of hashes and line counts suggests file reading without modification. Yet it does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the project, nor does it address permission or performance considerations. The implicit signal is present but not fully explicit.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Profile a target project') and lists concrete findings. It includes the phase context without wasted words. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet-like), it is efficient and readable, earning a 4.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must convey what the agent will receive. It lists the detected elements but not the format or structure of the result. It also omits prerequisites (e.g., project root must exist) and any integration with downstream audit steps beyond being 'Phase 0.' For a tool of this complexity, this is a moderate gap.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage (projectRoot, include, exclude all have clear descriptions). The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, leaving semantics entirely to the schema. Since the schema already explains them well, a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool profiles a project and enumerates specific outputs (ecosystem, languages, frameworks, entry points, manifest files, file manifest with hashes and line counts). It also positions itself as 'Phase 0 of the audit pipeline,' distinguishing it from siblings like detect_platform or audit_pipeline. The verb-resource pairing is explicit and unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Phase 0 of the audit pipeline' gives clear placement in a workflow, implying it should be used first before other audit steps. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or define when not to use it (e.g., versus detect_platform). That omission keeps it from a 5, but the context is strong enough for a 4.

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