profiles_get

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, non-destructive read. The description does add a genuine behavioral fact beyond the annotations: it returns raw JSON and signals a missing profile via ok:false with an error. That error contract is valuable, but auth requirements, profile contents, and size/rate considerations are unstated.

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?

It is short and front-loads the resource description, which is good. The parenthetical '(V6, ADR-061)' is internal-reference noise that consumes space without helping an agent decide or invoke, and the second sentence, while useful, is not structured as explicit guidance.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema, the description does cover the return shape (raw JSON) and the not-found error behavior, so an agent knows what to expect. It still omits how scan_run_id is obtained and what the profile contains, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool that is otherwise simple.

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 single required parameter scan_run_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never explains it – no format, no indication of where the ID comes from or that it must reference an existing scan run. The description only implies the profile is keyed by scan run, which is not enough for the one parameter that drives the call.

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 identifies the resource (a scan-time column profile sidecar for a given scan run) and its return format (raw JSON), which is more than a tautology. However, the core verb is only implied and the framing leans on internal jargon ('sidecar', 'V6, ADR-061') rather than a plain statement like 'retrieve the column profile for a scan run'. It is understandable to a domain-aware agent but not crisply distinguished.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as scan_file, quality_score, or list_issues. No prerequisites, no conditions, and no sibling is named. The only usable cue is the implicit read of a profile by scan_run_id.

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