get_aircraft_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the profile must have been previously declared, implying state-dependent behavior. However, it does not mention what happens if no profile is set (e.g., error or empty response), leaving a gap in behavioral transparency.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences with no waste. It directly states the purpose and the required prior call, earning a perfect score for conciseness and structure.

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), and the description gives the essential purpose and prerequisite. However, it omits likely edge-case behavior (e.g., no profile declared), which would improve completeness for an agent invoking this tool without prior context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but with no params to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The prerequisite note adds context about the tool's overall usage.

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 returns the currently declared aircraft profile. The verb 'return' and resource 'aircraft profile' are specific, and the prerequisite note helps distinguish it from sibling tools like define_aircraft and apply_aircraft_setup.

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?

It explicitly instructs to call define_aircraft() first, which is the key usage prerequisite. This provides clear context on when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which is less critical given the low complexity.

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