get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the bar is lower. The description adds only content hints ('where proposals go'), not behavioral traits such as permission requirements, caching, or connection-specific scoping that would go beyond the 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?

It is short and free of filler, but it is a sentence fragment with no subject or verb, so the information is not front-loaded in a way the agent can act on. The length is fine; the structure is weak.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema covering the return shape, and rich annotations, the description does not need to carry much. However, it never states that this returns the current connection's profile or how it relates to list_spaces/propose_memory, so the routing information an agent needs is only partially present.

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. No parameter meaning is lost.

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 fragment identifies the content of the resource ('readable spaces and where proposals go') but never states an action ('returns/retrieves') or names the resource as a profile, so an agent must infer that get_profile returns the current connection's permission scope. It is meaningfully different from get_context, but the purpose is expressed obliquely rather than as a verb+resource.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternative named, despite siblings list_spaces (readable spaces) and propose_memory (proposal destination) overlapping with the two things this description mentions. The description only implies usage; nothing tells the agent when to pick get_profile over get_context or list_spaces.

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