profiles.getActive

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond that with scope, the no-undo note, and the enumerated error conditions (internalError, invalidParams); the only omission is telling the agent that null means no profile is active.

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 return value is front-loaded in the first line and the metadata block is scannable rather than prose-heavy. "Effect: read" restates readOnlyHint=true and "Undo: none" is borderline for a read-only call, so a little of the boilerplate does not earn its place.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the return shape (profile or null), the error surface, and side-effect status. It stops short of describing the fields of a profile object, but that is a minor gap for a trivial lookup.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-param tool is a 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?

"Return the active profile or null" gives a specific verb (return) and resource (active profile), plus the null case. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like profiles_list and profiles_switch, but never names them, so the differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "active" signals this is the current-profile lookup rather than an enumeration or a switch. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over profiles_list or profiles_switch, nor any prerequisite noted.

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