get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds that JSON fields are parsed and that a specific profile can be requested, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose error behavior, edge cases (e.g., no active profile), or explicitly confirm read-only semantics beyond the verb 'Return'.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the optional parameter behavior, and contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are covered there. This is a simple one-parameter read tool, and the description sufficiently explains the core selection logic. The phrase 'JSON fields parsed' is slightly ambiguous but not enough to lower the score further.

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 schema has one optional nullable profile_id with a title and no description, so the description compensates by indicating that omitting it returns the active profile and supplying it returns that profile. The null/default semantics are implied rather than explicit, but the single parameter is fairly self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource: the active profile or a profile specified by profile_id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_profiles (which lists all) and set_active_profile (which changes the active profile).

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 'active profile (or a given one)' establishes clear retrieval context and implies when to use the tool: when you need a single profile, not a list or a mutation. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough from the wording.

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