cldkctl_profile_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description reveals nothing about whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what format the response takes, or any rate limits. The phrase 'Call the... endpoint' is completely generic and provides zero behavioral insight.

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?

While technically concise with a single sentence, this is an example of harmful under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey essential information about the tool's purpose and behavior. Every word should earn its place, but here the single sentence provides almost no value beyond what's already in the tool name.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool returns, what operations it performs, or how it differs from related tools. For a tool that presumably retrieves profile details (inferred from the name), the description fails to explain what 'profile' means in this context or what details are available.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps. While it doesn't add any parameter-specific information (because there are none), the baseline for zero parameters with complete schema coverage is appropriately set at 4.

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 'Call the cldkctl_profile_detail endpoint' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without explaining what it does. It doesn't specify what resource is accessed, what operation is performed, or what information is retrieved. Compared to sibling tools like 'cldkctl_update_profile' (which suggests modification) or 'cldkctl_org_detail' (which suggests organizational detail retrieval), this provides no meaningful differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context requirements, or relationships to other tools like 'cldkctl_update_profile' or 'cldkctl_org_detail'. An agent would have no basis for deciding when this tool is appropriate versus other profile-related operations.

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