share_get_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which fields come back, but says nothing about authentication requirements or whether a missing profile yields an error versus an empty result.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the actor and the fields, with no wasted words. Nothing is buried.

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?

A zero-argument read with an output schema and full annotations needs little prose, and the description covers the field scope. The only gap is the implicit-auth assumption, which is minor for this shape of tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field list loosely maps to what would otherwise be parameters, which adds a little context.

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?

Specific verb (读取) plus a specific resource (当前用户 profile) with an enumeration of the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from share_update_profile, though it does not explicitly call out the overlap with share_get_points_overview's points balance.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'current user' signals this is the self-profile read with no arguments, and the sibling share_update_profile covers the write case. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion (e.g., when to call this versus share_get_points_overview for the balance).

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