get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but does not disclose return format, error behavior, whether the profile must exist, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency beyond the obvious getter semantics.

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 one short, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource and earns every word.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate: an agent can infer to pass a profile name and expect config back. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage context, it leaves alternative routing and behavioral details unspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only that a 'specified' profile's config is returned, without explaining the name parameter's format, valid values, or whether it is a profile name versus an ID. This barely exceeds the bare schema property definition.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it gets a profile's configuration. The word '指定' (specified) loosely distinguishes it from sibling get_active_profile, but it does not explicitly clarify that the profile is identified by name or explicitly contrast it with related siblings.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_active_profile, list_profiles, or use_profile. The description simply states what the tool does without mentioning alternatives, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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