show_profile

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return includes categories and collections that will be added when the profile is applied, providing useful context. However, it does not explicitly state the read-only nature or absence of side effects.

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 concise, with a clear opening sentence and structured argument section. It could be slightly more concise by omitting the argument details since the schema already provides them, but it remains efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one parameter, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It adds context about the return content beyond the schema.

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 100% for the single parameter. The description repeats the schema's description verbatim, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Show profile details' and specifies it returns complete profile configuration including categories and collections. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_profiles (list) and use_project_profile (apply).

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 describes what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_profiles for a list, use_project_profile to apply). Usage is implied but not explicitly clarified.

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