Get Dev Mcp Profile

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but the verb "Get" combined with zero parameters and an output schema makes the read-only, side-effect-free nature clear enough. It adds the notion of "active" state being reported, though it says nothing about permissions or whether the profile can be missing.

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. Every word contributes to identifying the resource returned.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is trivially simple with no inputs. The only residual gap is that "profile" and "module count" are unelaborated jargon, but for a zero-argument introspection call this is close to sufficient.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is also effectively complete.

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 names a specific verb ("Get") and a specific resource ("the active dev-mcp tool profile and registered module count"), so the agent knows exactly what is being fetched. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling or explain what a "profile" contains, which keeps it from a 5.

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 call this versus alternatives (e.g., project_info, doctor, or desktop_status, which are the other introspection-style siblings). The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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