get_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 the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful scoping detail that it reads the *active* profile, but says nothing about return shape, caching, or rate limits.

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 short sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though 'progress and discoveries' is doing vague double duty where a more concrete noun would be sharper.

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 explaining what comes back, and 'progress and discoveries' is too abstract to tell an agent what fields or structure to expect. For a zero-param read tool this is adequate but leaves a real gap.

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 there is no parameter semantics burden to carry; the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'active' implicitly explains why no identifier argument is 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (the active profile) plus the payload (progress and discoveries), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling get_game_state, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 guidance on when to call this rather than get_game_state or health_check, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The only implied usage is that the profile must be 'active'.

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