u1_get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavior: it returns a single, resolved profile using exact-match lookup. However, 'resolved' is left undefined, and there is no mention of not-found behavior or how resolution interacts with profile source chains.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('one', 'resolved', 'by exact name or file stem') adds necessary specificity.

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?

For a simple getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core retrieval semantics but omits important context such as valid 'kind' values, the meaning of 'resolved', and error behavior. It is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully maps 'name' to an exact profile name or file stem and 'kind' to machine/process/filament profile types. It stops short of giving explicit allowed values or format details, but it provides meaningful guidance the schema lacks.

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 ('Return'), a concrete resource ('one resolved machine/process/filament profile'), and an access method ('by exact name or file stem'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like u1_list_profiles or u1_profile_source_chain.

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?

The phrase 'by exact name or file stem' implies this tool is for lookup of a single known profile, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it. Usage context must be inferred from the tool name and sibling list rather than stated.

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