get_automation_profile

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description correctly does not restate these. It adds valuable context by explaining that lab is the default and skips elicitation unless BROWSERTAP_LAB_NO_ELICIT is disabled, and that safe requires approval for every physical action. This goes beyond the annotation metadata.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides essential behavioral details. No filler or repetition—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?

For a parameterless getter with an output schema present, the description covers all necessary information: what it returns and the meaning of the two profile modes. The agent has enough to call it correctly without additional documentation.

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, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the active safe/lab automation profile.' It names the specific resource (automation profile) and distinguishes between two profile types, which is unambiguous and differentiates it from set_automation_profile and other sibling tools.

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 explains the behavioral differences between lab and safe profiles, which is useful context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_automation_profile. Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but no direct when-to-use or exclusions are given.

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