Get Profile

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which already provide strong transparency about side effects. The description's word 'Return' aligns with these hints. No contradictions. The description does not add extra context about caching or network behavior, but the annotations cover the essential safety profile.

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 a single, clear sentence. No fluff or redundancy.

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 has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose, though it lacks parameter explanations. Given the simplicity and existing schema, it's adequately complete.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'username' or 'refresh' beyond their obvious names. 'refresh' is ambiguous (e.g., force refresh vs. poll for updates). Since schema coverage is low, the description should have compensated, but it didn't.

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 action (Return) and the resource (normalized public profile information) and specifies the target (a Letterboxd user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_diary and get_films, which focus on diary entries and film data respectively.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of others. It implies that it is for profile data, but there is no direct comparison to get_diary or get_films, nor any condition like 'use this when you need the user's profile.'

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