get_profile

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

Annotations provide a title that matches the description's purpose, but no behavioral hints (e.g., readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). The description adds minimal context by specifying 'details' and 'specific', but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or what details are included, relying on the agent to infer from the schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, potential errors, or how it differs from siblings, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'profileId' documented as 'Profile UUID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a single identifier is needed, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra meaning.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('BugBug run profile'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profiles' (which likely lists multiple profiles) or 'get_test_run' (which might return different types of details), missing full sibling distinction.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid profileId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_profiles' for listing profiles or 'get_test_run' for test-specific details, leaving usage context unclear.

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