profile_show

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool shows detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., profile settings, colors, commands), whether it requires specific permissions, or how errors are handled. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated clearly in the first sentence and parameter details following. There's no wasted text, though the structure is basic. It could be slightly more polished but remains efficient.

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 (1 parameter), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and parameter, though it could improve by adding usage context or behavioral details. For a simple read operation, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that the 'name' parameter is 'The profile name,' which is slightly more informative than the schema's title 'Name.' However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate by detailing format, constraints, or examples. The baseline is 3 due to the single parameter being straightforward, but it lacks depth.

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 ('show detailed information') and resource ('about an iTerm2 profile'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'profile_list' (which lists profiles) and 'profile_apply' (which applies profiles), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, preventing a perfect score.

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 when to use 'profile_show' instead of 'profile_list' or other profile-related tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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