get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the parameters and format options but does not describe side effects, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., project_path validity). It is moderately transparent but incomplete.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a clear Args list. It contains no extraneous information and is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 output schema exists (not shown), the description need not elaborate on return values. It covers the parameters adequately for a simple retrieval tool, but lacks information about error cases or dependencies on other tools. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining parameters: project_path (absolute path), profile_id (with example), and format (with options). This adds meaningful value beyond the schema, though more detail about constraints would be helpful.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('specific profile by ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_profiles (which lists all profiles) and save_profile (which creates/updates).

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 gives the arguments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when a profile ID is known, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer list_profiles.

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