get_index

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the return value is a Markdown string, but it says nothing about side effects, read-only behavior, prerequisite profile state, or failure behavior.

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 two short lines with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded and the return type is stated directly, which is ideal for a tool of this simplicity.

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 that this is a zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential scope and return format. It would benefit from explicit usage guidance or a read-only statement, but the low complexity makes it sufficiently complete.

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 zero parameters, and the no-parameter baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details and focuses on what the tool returns.

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 states a specific resource ('enabled modules and bundles') and a clear scope ('current profile'), so an agent understands what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_modules or list_bundles, but the 'enabled ... for current profile' phrasing narrows the purpose enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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 versus alternatives such as list_modules, list_bundles, get_bundle, or get_overlay. 'For current profile' implies a profile-specific use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations are provided.

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