get_current_oci_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns information about the active profile, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, potential errors (e.g., if no profile is set), rate limits, or the format of the returned information. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to ensure safe and effective use.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: the first sentence directly states the tool's purpose, and the second sentence elaborates on the return value. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly and accurately.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions what the tool returns but doesn't specify the structure or content of the returned information (e.g., profile name, configuration details). For a tool that provides configuration data, this lack of output detail leaves significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though trivial since there are no parameters). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description doesn't introduce any confusion about parameters, and the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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: 'Get the currently active OCI profile' and 'Returns information about which profile is currently being used for API calls.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('currently active OCI profile'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_oci_profiles' or 'set_oci_profile', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_oci_profiles' (which might list all profiles) or 'set_oci_profile' (which might change the active profile), nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear direction on appropriate use cases.

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