Profile Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which fully cover the safety profile,Skip The description adds context about what specific data points are returned (profile, module set, exposure mode, counts), which complements the annotations by specifying the scope of the read operation. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations

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 front-loads the primary action ('Show the active AirMCP profile') and then lists the specific details returned. There are no redundant or unnecessary words, and every element earns its place.

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 has no parameters, no nested objects, and a simple read-only purpose, the description is complete. It lists all the relevant output fields, and with an output schema already present, the agent can infer the exact return format. The description leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter usage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inputs. It fully compensates for the absence of parameter documentation by describing the output structure.

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 the tool's purpose: displaying the active AirMCP profile, module set, tool exposure mode, exposed tool count, and total registered tool count. It uses specific verbs and resource types, distinguishing it from potentially similar status-like tools like 'tool_session_status' or 'workflow_readiness' by focusing on profile/module configuration metrics.

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 implicitly clarifies its use as a read-only status/inspection command, useful for checking the current profile configuration)Skip The description clearly states the tool is a read-only inspection command for viewing configuration details)Skip It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when this status check is appropriate. The sibling list includes other status tools, but no explicit guidance for choosing between them.

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