config_profiles_get_computed_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the configuration is computed on-the-fly, whether it reflects current node/inbound state, whether it can be expensive, or what the response shape is. 'Get' implies read-only, but the distinctive 'computed' behavior is left entirely unexplained.

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 seven-word sentence with no waste; the verb and object are front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification given that the key concept 'computed' goes undefined.

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 tool with a fully documented schema, the baseline completeness requirement is low. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, and this description does not explain what the returned computed configuration contains, how it differs from the plain profile, or when it is meaningful. It is minimally adequate but leaves the central concept opaque.

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 100% — the single required 'uuid' parameter is documented as 'Config profile UUID' in the schema. The description adds no parameter information, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully handles parameter semantics for this one-parameter tool.

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 states a clear verb ('Get'), resource ('computed configuration'), and target ('config profile'), so an agent knows what the tool does at a glance. It is distinguishable from siblings config_profiles_get and config_profiles_get_inbounds by the 'computed' qualifier, but the description never explains what 'computed' means, leaving some of the differentiation to the tool name itself.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the closely related config_profiles_get, config_profiles_get_inbounds, or config_profiles_list. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about the scenario where a 'computed' configuration is needed, so an agent must infer the selection logic entirely from naming.

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