llm_share_profile

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

With no annotations, the description explains it exports a file and prepares for upload, disclosing the action (export) and the lack of direct upload. It does not mention any side effects beyond preparing for upload, which is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Description is four sentences: states purpose, explains action, provides context, and lists return value. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 zero parameters, an output schema exists, the description covers the return value (path and instructions) completely. No gaps in information needed for an agent to use this tool.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. Baseline score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter details but none are needed.

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?

Description clearly states 'Share your learned routing profile' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like llm_import_profile and other llm tools by focusing on community sharing.

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 description implies when to use ('useful for publishing routing patterns') but does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives like llm_import_profile. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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