get_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly signals a non-destructive read operation ('Read') and specifies what data is returned. It does not detail error handling for invalid user inputs, but for a simple profile fetch the disclosure is adequate and accurate.

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 only two short sentences, leads with the action and default, and includes the most relevant output fields. Every clause earns its place with 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 and an output schema already present. The description covers purpose, default behavior, and returned fields. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this correctly, given the low complexity and the existing output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the optional 'user' parameter defaults to the caller's own profile, adding meaning to the empty-string default in the schema. However, it does not specify the allowed format of 'user' (e.g., ID, username, email), leaving ambiguity for an agent deciding how to populate it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('member profile'), states the default scope ('yours'), and lists the included fields (role, timezone, git identity, about). It clearly distinguishes this read operation from the sibling set_my_profile, which is the write counterpart.

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?

It explicitly notes the default behavior ('default: yours'), making it clear when no argument is provided. While it doesn't explicitly say 'when not to use' or name alternatives, the read context and the presence of set_my_profile make the intended usage obvious. It stops short of full exclusion guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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