Get session profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is settled. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that the answer is computed locally from the server's registration with no REST call — useful latency/cost context an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the field list, then the local-resolution note. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so by naming all six fields, which is enough for an agent to know what it will get. It stops short of explaining field semantics (e.g., what client_note or canonical_names mean), which is a minor gap for a zero-parameter introspection 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description lists the fields of the response rather than parameters, which does not map to schema semantics but is not misleading.

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 ('Report') and resource ('the effective profile of this MCP session'), then enumerates exactly what is returned (read_only, toolsets, tool_count, tool_names, canonical_names, client_note). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_capabilities and get_me because it scopes itself to session-level registration state.

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?

Usage is implied: call it to learn what this session is allowed to do. However, it never says when to prefer it over neighboring introspection tools such as get_capabilities or get_me, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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