OBS Profile

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

The description discloses redaction behavior for sensitive fields and the effect of the 'include_sensitive' parameter. However, with no annotations provided, it omits other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits, making coverage partial.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Read OBS personal/program profile') and concisely adds the key behavioral note about sensitive fields.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (covering return values) and the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter), the description sufficiently covers the essential behavior. It could optionally list what fields constitute the profile, but the current level is adequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 sole parameter 'include_sensitive' has zero schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It effectively explains that setting it to true avoids redaction of sensitive fields, adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'OBS personal/program profile', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like obs_get_advisor or obs_get_attendance, which target different specific data.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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