get_profile_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It adds context by specifying 'current profile' and 'raw parameter', indicating no processing. However, it omits return type, error behavior (e.g., missing key handling), and whether values are strings or parsed types. For a simple read, this is partially adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two short sentences plus an Args list, front-loaded with the action. No wasted words; every component serves a purpose.

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 (2 required params, no output schema), but the description does not describe the return value or error semantics. Since there is no output schema, this omission is notable. However, for a straightforward read operation with clearly explained inputs, the description is largely sufficient for invocation.

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 provides only titles with no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description's parameter explanations are essential. It defines category with an example ('Output') and name as 'Parameter name within that category,' adding meaningful guidance beyond the schema. This fully compensates for the schema's brevity.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('raw parameter from the current profile's .ini configuration'), distinguishing it from sibling set_profile_parameter and from higher-level getters like get_video_settings. The verb 'Read' and modifier 'raw' make the tool's function unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus siblings like get_video_settings or set_profile_parameter. It implies read-only access to raw ini values, but lacks direct alternative references or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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