get_profiles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: battery_profile only exists on Betaflight 2026.6+. It says nothing about return format, ordering, or how profile indices map to configuration.

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?

Extremely compact and front-loaded: the key term 'Profils actifs' comes first, followed by the returned fields. Nothing is padding, though the lack of a verb makes it read as a label rather than a complete instruction.

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 no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does list the returned profile fields, including the version-gated battery_profile. It still omits what the values mean (index numbers? names?), their ranges, and the unit/scaling of pid_profile_count, leaving an agent partially informed for a read 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead documents the response keys, which is the relevant semantic information for a parameterless read.

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 names the resource (active profiles) and enumerates exactly which profile indices are returned (pid_profile, pid_profile_count, rate_profile, battery_profile), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like get_battery_profiles (a list of available battery profiles) or select_profile (which switches them). It is clear but written as a noun fragment with no explicit retrieval verb.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_pid_values, get_rates, get_battery_profiles, or select_profile. The word 'actifs' implies a read-current-state purpose, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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