ver-mi-perfil

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the read returns (the enumerated profile sections), which implies a non-destructive read, but it says nothing about authentication/session requirements, what happens if the profile is empty or incomplete, or how errors surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the returned sections as a compact trailing list. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs to be re-read.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, naming the sections returned is the essential information and it is present. The one meaningful gap is the implied session/auth prerequisite, which matters because a sibling tool handles login.

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 the schema is trivially complete and the baseline applies. There is nothing the description could add on parameter semantics.

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 ('Lee') plus a specific resource ('tu hoja de vida actual en elempleo'), with the returned sections enumerated (perfil, experiencia, formación, cursos, idiomas, redes, habilidades, archivos). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'ver-perfil-maestro', and the word 'actual' is the only hint about the difference.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many profile-related siblings (ver-perfil-maestro, construir-perfil-maestro, comparar-perfil, actualizar-perfil). There are also no stated prerequisites, even though 'iniciar-sesion' and 'estado-de-sesion' in the sibling list imply a session is required.

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