xda_author

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 adequately describes the tool's behavior by specifying the output categories (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles) and the constraint of needing a canonical author URL. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read-only fetch this is a reasonable level of 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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded ('Get an XDA author profile'), and the second sentence efficiently lists the returned data, making every word earn its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what input it needs, and what data it returns. It omits details like pagination of recent articles or exact response structure, but these are minor for an author-profile lookup and the description is sufficient for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, 'url', is already documented as 'Canonical XDA author URL' in the schema. The description repeats this phrase but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get an XDA author profile.' It further enumerates the returned content (byline metadata, biography, social links, recent articles), making it unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like xda_article or xda_headlines. The phrase 'from a canonical author URL' also clarifies the expected input resource.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool—when an XDA author profile is needed given a canonical author URL—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. Sibling tools like xda_article or other *_author tools are not mentioned, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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