actiond_profile_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the return value and the meanings of the 'fast', 'full', and 'release' profiles, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error conditions, caching, or rate limits. This matches the baseline for annotation-covered read-only tools.

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?

The description is efficient and front-loaded: purpose first, then return value, then profile semantics, then related tools. Every sentence adds distinct, useful information without redundancy or filler.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: it names the active profile, describes what each profile triggers with job counts, and routes to related tools. Nothing an agent needs to call this zero-parameter read-only tool correctly is missing.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema carries no parameter burden. The description adds value by explaining what the returned profile name means and what each profile triggers, which is more than the empty input schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the execution profile that controls which CI/CD plugins run on each push.' It clearly states what the tool returns and differentiates itself from related tools by naming actiond_profile_set and actiond_plugins_list as the tools for switching profiles and inspecting plugin inventory.

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 description provides clear context for when this read-only tool is appropriate and explicitly points to alternatives: 'switch profiles with actiond_profile_set and inspect the concrete plugin inventory with actiond_plugins_list.' It does not state an explicit 'use this when...' rule, but the purpose and alternatives are unambiguous.

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