get_profile

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: inheritance is expanded, mode changes what is returned, and engine defaults are excluded by default. However, it does not describe the output structure, how keys and limit affect results, or what errors/cases might occur.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs mode semantics plus default-handling behavior efficiently. It has no filler, though it could have used a clearer subject-verb structure.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, the description is too thin. It omits how the profile is located, what keys and limit do, what the returned data looks like, and when this tool should be preferred over related tools.

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 must compensate for all seven parameters. It only explains mode and include_defaults; keys, name, type, group, and limit are left unexplained, which is insufficient for confident invocation.

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 identifies the tool as returning a profile with inheritance expanded and distinguishes its three modes (raw, resolved, traced), which separates it from sibling tools like list_profiles or normalize_profile. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns', but the intent is unambiguous.

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 explains mode choices and the include_defaults behavior, but it never says when to choose get_profile over the many sibling tools, such as get_chain, explain_key, or diff_profiles. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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