config_profiles_get_inbounds

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 nothing further — no note on whether the profile must exist, whether the result is paginated, or what an inbound record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is tight, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal economy.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally viable but thin: it doesn't describe the returned inbound structure or ordering, and there are many sibling get/list tools it could have been disambiguated from.

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 coverage is 100%: the single uuid parameter is fully documented in the schema as "UUID of the config profile". The description only restates that the uuid selects a profile, adding no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Get") with a specific resource ("inbounds") and a scope qualifier ("by profile uuid"), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it never names the closely related siblings config_profiles_get or inbounds_list, so an agent must infer the division of labor from names 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over inbounds_list (list all inbounds) or config_profiles_get (get the profile itself). The scoping phrase implies a use case but no alternative or exclusion is stated.

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