profile_inspect

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

Given that no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that the tool 'decode[s] and inspect[s]' the profile to show 'full contents', implying a read-only, non-destructive action. However, it does not specify whether the output is printed to console, returned as structured data, or saved somewhere. The description is adequate but lacks detail about potential side effects or output format.

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 conveys the action and target without any filler. Every word is meaningful, and it is front-loaded with the key verb 'decode and inspect'.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and the sibling tools, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits what the output actually is (e.g., raw contents parsed and printed, formatted JSON, etc.) and does not clarify if this is purely a display tool or if it returns data for further processing. With no output schema, the description could have added value by describing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds context by explaining that the 'profilePath' is an absolute path to a .mobileprovision file, which is slightly more specific than the schema's own description ('Absolute path to the .mobileprovision file'). Since the schema already covers the parameter fully, the tool description still adds marginal value by framing the parameter in the context of the tool's action.

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 uses specific verbs ('Decode and inspect') and identifies the resource ('provisioning profile'). It clearly states the tool's purpose, but does not distinguish it from siblings like 'provisioning_profiles' or 'entitlements_check', which could be related.

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 like 'provisioning_profiles' or 'entitlements_check'. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid .mobileprovision file path, or when this decode action is appropriate.

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