profile

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

Goes well past the annotations: recursion into subfolders, no modification of the .flp files, FL need not be running, ~2 s for 80 projects, the write of profile.md/profile.json to tmp/profile/<folder name>/, non-fatal read failures, and the {ok: false, error} shape on an empty folder. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry, and readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the tmp file writes.

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?

Purpose and sibling routing are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (timing, output, error behavior). Some clauses are densely stacked in a single run-on sentence, which costs a little readability.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and non-destructive annotations, the description still covers what is returned (tempo, key, arrangement length in bars), where artifacts are written, failure modes, and runtime. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the folder parameter is already documented as absolute or repo-relative. The description still adds real semantics: recursion into subfolders and the fact that the folder name determines the output path under tmp/profile/.

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 ("List a person's projects from a folder of their .flp files") and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling that reads a single project's contents. An agent can tell profile apart from project_read without opening either 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?

Routes the agent explicitly to project_read for single-project contents and frames profile as the survey step that decides which projects to open in full. It gives clear context for use but states no exclusions beyond that routing (e.g. what to do if the folder is huge or already profiled).

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