get_user_profile

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It correctly implies a read operation with no side effects. Does not state permissions needed or behavior for invalid user IDs, but for a straightforward GET-like call this is minimally adequate.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and primary return fields. No redundant information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and the two returned fields. It could mention error cases, but for core functionality it's sufficient.

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 100% so the schema already documents the parameter. Description adds a helpful format example ('e.g. @user:matrix.org'), providing additional value beyond schema. Baseline 3 with slight positive increment.

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 tool retrieves a Matrix user's display name and avatar URL. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('get user profile') and naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on rooms, messages, or actions.

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 or avoid this tool. However, given its simple read nature and the context of sibling tools (all different actions), the usage is implied and defaults are sufficient. Lacks explicit alternatives or prerequisites.

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