worker_profile_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scoping context: the settings are operator-selected and scoped to the current session, implying no arguments and a snapshot read. It says nothing about whether values can be stale, unset, or how they are refreshed, so it adds only modest context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant content, scoping the read to the current session immediately.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient and enumerates the categories of settings returned. It could briefly note what happens when no Worker profile is active, but no essential calling information is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Read') and enumerates the resource contents (Worker model, reasoning, access and supervision settings), which is specific enough to distinguish it from write siblings like worker_profile_set. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the adjacent read sibling session_mode_get, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 no when/when-not guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It never clarifies how it relates to session_mode_get or worker_status, which also read session state.

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