Get Routing Profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if no profile is active. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, as it lacks details on permissions, errors, or response format.

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 ('show the active routing profile') and adds useful context ('for this session and what it allows or denies'). There is no wasted verbiage, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or return values. Without an output schema, the description should ideally hint at the response format, but it doesn't, leaving some gaps in completeness for a tool that interacts with session settings.

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 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here. In such cases, the baseline score is 4, as there are no parameters to document, and the description doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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: to 'show the active routing profile for this session and what it allows or denies.' It specifies the verb ('show') and resource ('active routing profile'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'gateway_list_profiles' (which likely lists all profiles) and 'gateway_set_profile' (which modifies profiles). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these siblings, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'for this session,' suggesting it's used to check current session settings. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gateway_list_profiles' or 'gateway_set_profile,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves usage somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.

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