get_quality_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only operation through 'Get' and discloses the depth of the returned data by mentioning quality items and custom format scores. It does not cover error handling or authentication, but those are not critical for a simple 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information: the operation, the resource, the scope, and the included content.

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 description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and the level of detail. A note about not-found behavior or a pointer to list_quality_profiles for summaries would make it fully complete, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There is only one parameter, the schema describes it as 'Quality profile id', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one quality profile'), and adds the completeness qualifier 'in full' plus the contents ('every quality item and custom format score'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_quality_profiles and get_quality_profile_schema without needing to inspect either tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The contrast with list_quality_profiles is only implied by 'one' and 'in full', and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer the intended selection context from the name and sibling list.

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