get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the payload is 'small' and 'static', and the operation is cheaper than a search, which tells the agent about cost and caching behavior. It does not describe auth requirements or the default namespace when omitted.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and its contents, then adds the routing cue. Nothing is wasted and the ordering advice is placed where it is most useful.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description tells the agent what comes back (stack, conventions, commands) and when to prefer it over search. The only real gap is behavior when the optional namespace argument is omitted.

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 0%, and the schema only carries a regex pattern and length bounds. The description ties the call to 'a namespace' but does not explain the parameter's semantics — notably that it is optional, what namespace is assumed when omitted, or what valid namespace values mean. Minimal compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 ('Get the small static profile for a namespace') and enumerates what it returns (stack, conventions, commands). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search as the more expensive alternative, so an agent can tell it apart from search_memories without opening the 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?

'Cheaper than search; read this first' gives clear and actionable ordering guidance relative to search_memories. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions (e.g., when profile data is stale, or when set_profile/update_memory should be used instead), so it is not a full 5.

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