get_collision_profile

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the unknown-name error behavior and clarifies that custom_responses contains only per-channel overrides. It also provides the return shape, which is materially useful behavioral detail.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose and scope, and the trailing Returns block is useful because there is no output schema. There is mild redundancy between the inline field list and the Returns block, but it stays readable.

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 the schema covering the only parameter, annotations covering safety, and the description supplying the return shape and error semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this simple read 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single profile_name parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples; the description adds only 'by name', which the schema already implies. The baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Read one project collision profile by name, read-only', and it names the writer sibling add_collision_profile so an agent can separate read from write. The returned fields are enumerated, reinforcing what the tool surfaces.

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?

States the read-only contract, points to add_collision_profile as the writer (the alternative for mutation), and warns that an unknown name is an error. That supplies both when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals for this tool.

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