config_profiles_get_computed_config

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one behavioral nuance—that the config profile is 'computed' rather than raw—but omits auth, caching, computation timing, or reproducibility details.

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?

Extremely concise and front-loaded: one imperative clause with no filler. For a single-parameter lookup, nothing is wasted, though the brevity contributes to gaps captured in other dimensions.

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?

Adequate for a simple read-only lookup: annotations cover safety, the schema covers the single required field, and no output schema means return values need not be described. Still, the key sibling distinction (computed vs raw config profile) is absent, so completeness is only minimal.

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%: the only parameter is a required uuid string with no schema description. The description merely restates 'by uuid' and does not explain the UUID's source, expected format beyond the schema's format, or its role in selecting the profile.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('computed config profile'), and the required key ('by uuid'), so the core action is clear. However, it does not differentiate this computed-profile variant from sibling config_profiles_get, so an agent cannot infer the distinction from the description alone.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not name config_profiles_get or config_profiles_get_inbounds as alternatives. Usage is only implied by the name and UUID parameter, leaving the agent to infer the intended scenario.

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