Get a profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation ('Get profile info') without mentioning authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or return format. A simple read operation is implied, but no behavioral traits are explicitly disclosed beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key action ('Get profile info') and provides a helpful list of example contents. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description provides enough to know it returns profile information. However, it does not clarify the return shape, possible errors, or any access constraints. For a read tool of this simplicity, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth that would help an agent anticipate edge cases.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'actor', including its meaning ('Handle or DID') and usage ('Omit to get your own profile'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that it's for an account. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 a specific action ('Get profile info') and the target resource ('for an account'). It explicitly mentions example fields (bio, follower counts), making its purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from sibling tools like bluesky_get_author_feed (posts) or bluesky_get_followers (lists).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or alternative tools. The only hint (omitting actor for own profile) lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself fails to provide usage context.

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