bw_system_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it largely succeeds: it reveals that the tool checks three preconditions, explains the Accept-header failure mode (HTTP 406 on BW 7.5), and states what the response effectively exposes. It does not explicitly say whether the call is read-only or whether any side effects exist, but the described behavior strongly implies discovery and inspection.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into concrete behavioral details. It is longer than strictly necessary, with 'One call beats inferring the release from failed ones' being a slightly rhetorical closer, but nearly every sentence carries useful operational meaning.

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 profiling tool, the description is complete: it covers the release distinction, endpoint-group discovery, precondition checks, failure modes, and the alternate tool path when REST resources do not exist. An agent can decide when to invoke it and what the answer will actually mean.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no semantic gap for the description to fill. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inventing parameter details.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find out what the connected BW system is and which of this server's tools will work on it.' It clearly identifies the tool as a system-introspection/profiling capability and distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that perform CRUD or execution operations.

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 explicitly says to call it 'before planning work on a system whose release you do not already know.' It also notes the alternative route on classic BW systems — reading transformations, DTPs, and classic providers with bw_read_metadata_tables instead of REST tools — giving an agent concrete routing guidance.

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