get_automation_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the meaning of the two returned profile states and their operational differences (elicitation skipping, approval requirements). It does not fully define terms like 'elicitation' or 'permission allow,' but it provides meaningful transparency for a zero-parameter getter.

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?

Two sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and no filler. The first sentence states exactly what is returned; the second packs the essential safe/lab semantics without redundancy.

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 read-only getter with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the default mode, and the behavioral distinction between safe and lab. Nothing needed to invoke the 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 the schema confirms an empty argument object, so there is no parameter behavior to describe. Per the zero-parameter baseline, the description earns a 4 by adding profile context rather than needing to explain inputs.

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: 'Return the active safe/lab automation profile.' It clearly identifies the tool as a getter for the current automation profile and distinguishes it from set_automation_profile via 'return active' versus setting. It also defines the two profile modes, removing ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when this tool matters: lab is default and skips elicitation, while safe requires approval for physical actions. It implies the tool is used to read the current profile before deciding behavior, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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