get_center_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description says 'Return the local Pilates center profile and poster defaults.' It does not mention any side effects, data format, or caching behavior. Since it's a read operation and likely safe, but there is no mention of return structure or any potential size limits. Lacks behavioral detail.

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 sentences. It efficiently states what it does and when to use it. No waste.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema). The description covers purpose and usage context. However, given the purpose of the tool is to return a profile and poster defaults, it might be useful to indicate what kind of data is included, but with no parameters and a simple read, the description is mostly complete. A score of 3 is reasonable because it doesn't describe the return format.

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. The schema is empty. The description doesn't need to explain parameters. According to the rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. The description's mention of 'poster defaults' adds meaning to what is returned.

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 the tool returns the local Pilates center profile and poster defaults. The verb 'return' and resource 'local Pilates center profile' are specific. While it distinguished from siblings like 'update_center_profile' and 'get_schedule_settings', it could be clearer about whether it returns only a subset or all center settings, but it is clear enough for purpose.

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 says 'Use before poster generation.' This gives clear context of when to use the tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with other similar tools like 'get_schedule_settings', but the context is adequate.

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