explain_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects, permissions, or failure modes. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or what happens if a profile is not found, instead only describing the output content. This leaves the safety profile ambiguous.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first clause. It avoids unnecessary details and includes only essential information about input and output scope.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return format and potential errors. It describes the content of the explanation but not its structure or limitations, leaving some gaps for a simple tool.

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 schema already provides full coverage of the profile_id parameter, including the fuzzy search behavior and example format. The description merely repeats 'accepts id or name' without adding additional semantics, so it meets the baseline but offers no extra value.

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 that the tool explains a 1C access profile in business language, listing specific output aspects (employee capabilities, accessible sections, required approvals). It also notes it accepts profile id or name, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle instructions or raw queries.

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 the tool is for explaining profiles in non-technical terms but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_1c_access_groups or search_by_role. There is no mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios, though the business-language framing provides some context.

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