get_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation and the field list indicates what data is returned, but the description does not explain how 'active' is determined, what happens if no profile exists, or any access requirements. It is adequate but minimal.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The core action and result fields are front-loaded, and the use-case sentence earns its place by giving operational context.

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 no output schema, the description provides the essential information: what the profile contains and why it is useful. It could be more explicit about the output format or the meaning of 'active', but nothing critical is missing for calling the 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 tool has zero parameters, making parameter-level guidance unnecessary. The description adds value by explaining what the returned profile contains, which is the relevant semantic context for a parameterless call.

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 names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('active Nightscout profile'), and enumerates the contained fields (ISF, ICR, basal rates, target ranges, DIA). It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like insulin_sensitivity_check or carb_ratio_check.

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 phrase 'Useful for understanding pump/loop settings' provides an implied use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of when it should not be used. The usage context is suggestive rather than directive.

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