scm_get_wildfire_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly confirm this or mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response contains. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. The structure is front-loaded with the main purpose, though the parameter section could be slightly more integrated.

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 simple read operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters, but lacks information about the return value format, error handling, or authentication context. With no annotations and no output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: profile_id as 'UUID of the WildFire profile' and tsg_id as 'Optional TSG ID or named alias' with default behavior. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain format constraints or provide examples.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'a single WildFire antivirus profile by UUID', making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes this from list operations (like scm_list_wildfire_profiles) by specifying 'single', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other get operations for different resource types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use scm_list_wildfire_profiles for listing multiple profiles, or scm_get_wildfire_profile versus other get operations. The only contextual hint is the parameter documentation, which doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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