briefing_get_profile

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

With no annotations, description carries the burden. It discloses return content ('关注领域、当前项目、不想看的内容等') and implies read-only behavior via '获取' ('get') and '读取' ('read'). This adds context beyond schema, though it omits error handling or auth specifics.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states the core purpose, second gives usage context. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, but description summarizes the return types (focus areas, projects, disliked content). Combined with usage guidance, this is sufficient for a simple get tool with one optional parameter; it lacks only deeper details like pagination or error 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?

Schema covers the token parameter with 100% description coverage, setting baseline at 3. The tool description does not mention the token parameter, adding no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

Description states '获取用户的兴趣偏好' (get user's interest preferences) and lists example fields (关注领域、当前项目、不想看的内容), clearly identifying it as a profile retrieval tool. The '获取' verb and specific resource distinguish it from sibling set_profile/create_profile tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs to read before analyzing news ('在分析新闻前应先读取，作为筛选依据'), providing clear timing and purpose. However, it does not mention when not to use or name alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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