get_machine_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile and non-network nature are covered. The description usefully adds that values originate from config.g settings rather than live machine state, but is silent on the meaning/effect of the refresh parameter and on caching.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the safety framing and the when-to-use directive are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the categories of returned settings, and it makes clear when the data is needed. Only the refresh parameter's semantics remain unexplained.

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 sole parameter 'refresh' is never mentioned in the description. The name is fairly self-explanatory, but the description does not explain whether refresh forces a re-parse of config.g, what the default is, or the cost of refreshing.

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 (parsed/read) and resource (safety-relevant machine settings from config.g) and even enumerates the fields returned (axis limits, heater max temps, motor currents). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby get_machine_info, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the moment to call it: 'Read this before planning any motion or heating.' That is a clear usage context, but no alternative sibling is named for cases where the agent wants live state rather than config-derived values.

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