get_model_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'get' implying a read-only operation, which is acceptable. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the returned data is fresh. The description is minimally transparent but adequate for a simple retrieval.

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 concise with a single-line purpose followed by structured Args/Returns sections. It includes both Japanese and English. The Returns section is vague but present. No unnecessary content, though it could be more compact.

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 the low complexity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description lacks completeness. It omits details about what constitutes a model profile and how the returned fields (success, active_profile, settings) are structured. The param description contradicts the schema, reducing trust. An output schema exists but is not described in the tool definition.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section labels 'caller_agent_id' as required ('必須'), but the input schema shows it not in the required array and with a default of null. This contradiction degrades reliability. No additional semantic meaning beyond a name is provided for the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the current model profile ('現在のモデルプロファイルを取得する。'). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'switch_model_profile' (alters profile) and 'get_model_profile_settings' (maybe more specific). However, it does not define 'model profile', leaving some 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as 'get_model_profile_settings'. No context provided about prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The description lacks explicit usage direction.

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