Claude-Profil auflösen

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, reducing the burden. The description adds valuable context by explaining the resolution process (including optional inheritance) and what the output shows (resulting MCP servers). This provides behavioral insight beyond the annotations, though it does not mention potential errors or exact output format.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the action and includes the key outcome. It contains no redundancy or filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 (2 params, no output schema) and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the core behavior and result ('shows resulting MCP servers'), which provides the necessary return-value context given the absence of an output schema. It does not elaborate on edge cases or inheritance rules, but that is not critical for this level of complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'profileName' includes format and example, and 'profileRoot' explains optionality and default. The description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 what the tool does: it resolves a Claude profile including optional inheritance and shows the resulting MCP servers. The verb 'Löst' (resolves) and the specific outcome ('zeigt die resultierenden MCP-Server') make the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like switch_profile (which activates) or list_profiles (which lists) by focusing on resolution/inheritance.

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 implies usage context: use this when you need to resolve a profile and see the effective MCP servers after inheritance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools are listed, but the description itself offers no comparative guidance, so it remains at 'implied usage' rather than explicit recommendations.

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