get_arm_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is not a direct GET-by-id but a filtered call to the list endpoint, which is a meaningful implementation behavior that could affect error behavior and performance. The use of 'Get' and 'GET /v1/arm-profiles' implies read-only, though it does not explicitly say 'does not modify data'.

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?

Three short lines with no filler; the primary action and cardinality are first, the upstream limitation is a brief clarifying parenthetical, and parameter guidance is separated for readability. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description covers the essential selection logic, parameter sources, and the only relevant upstream quirk. It doesn't state what happens when no profile matches, but the presence of an output schema and the clearly-worded singular intent reduce the need for that detail.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does: host is explained as 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)', and arm_profile_id is marked REQUIRED with instruction to obtain it from list_arm_profiles. This exceeds what the raw string-typed schema provides.

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?

States 'Get one arm profile by id' with a clear verb, resource, and cardinality. The parenthetical 'filters GET /v1/arm-profiles; no GET-by-id exists upstream' provides implementation context that distinguishes it from a typical direct fetch and from list_arm_profiles.

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 establishes that this tool is the way to retrieve a single arm profile, and explicitly points to list_arm_profiles as the source of the required arm_profile_id. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use it, but the 'by id' condition is clear enough.

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