show_profile

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely useful behavior: staged-but-unapplied changes are included and marked with '*', and the slot labels shown are exactly those the editing tools accept. It stops short of explaining ordering or how 'state' is encoded, but the mutation-vs-staged disclosure is valuable.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence carries two distinct pieces of useful info (staged markers, editable labels) without padding, though its fragment style is slightly denser than needed.

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 an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It supplies the staged-change and label semantics an agent needs, leaving only sibling disambiguation (render_profile, preview_changes) unaddressed.

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 coverage is 75% (device, profile, and show_settings are documented; show_children is not), which puts this near the high-coverage baseline. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond display conventions, so it neither compensates for the undescribed flag nor exceeds the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (render) and resource (profile) plus what the output contains: a grid sketch, every occupied slot with its action, title and state. Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling render_profile or preview_changes, which an agent must otherwise disambiguate by schema inspection.

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?

Usage is only implied: reading a profile's current layout. Nothing states when to prefer this over render_profile, preview_changes, or get_overview, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The closing note about labels feeding editing tools hints at workflow but not at selection.

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