get_studio_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the source ('from `.env`') and the 'active' selection semantics, which is real context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about failure modes (no profile configured), whether the file is read fresh each call, or any side effects of the read.

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 the verb and source first, followed by the field inventory. The field enumeration is somewhat long but each item is meaningful since it defines the profile's scope.

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?

Zero-parameter read with an output schema, so return shape needs no explanation and the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. The only real gap is the unaddressed case where no active profile exists in `.env`.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Return the active studio profile') and enumerates exactly what the payload contains (character details, cast, art style, book mode, paths). It reads as a read-side counterpart to configure_studio, but it never names that sibling or any other, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives are named. An agent must infer that this is the read used before configure_studio writes, or before project creation, entirely from the sibling list.

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