get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only implies a read operation and notes the results are 'ordered'; it says nothing about permissions, whether a profile must exist first, pagination, or the response shape. 'Ordered' is a small genuine behavioral detail, which lifts it above the bare minimum.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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 tool with two parameters, an unexplained enum, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It neither defines the parameters nor describes what the returned checks look like, leaving the agent without the information needed to call it correctly.

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 explain the two parameters, and it does not. The 'name' parameter is only obliquely hinted at by 'platform profile', and the 'gate' enum ('fast'/'full') is never mentioned, despite 'launch-gate' suggesting a connection the agent must guess at.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Return') with a resource ('ordered launch-gate checks for a platform profile'), so the general action is inferable. However, the core nouns are unexplained jargon: it never says what a 'platform profile' is or how a profile differs from a check, so the agent cannot confidently separate it from siblings like get_check or search_checks.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Sibling tools such as search_checks and get_check plausibly overlap, and the description does nothing to route the agent between them.

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