ver-mi-perfil

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Lee' clearly signals a read-only operation, and the field list discloses what is returned, but it does not mention authentication requirements, behavior when no profile exists, or whether the data is live or cached.

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 with the verb first and a compact enumeration of returned fields. Every element earns its place, and there is no 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return contents. It could still say more about auth requirements or behavior when the profile is absent, but the core call context is covered.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. This is the expected baseline for a no-argument read tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lee') and resource ('tu hoja de vida actual en Magneto') and enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as ver-perfil-maestro or listar-mis-cv, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies reading the current profile but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like ver-perfil-maestro or listar-mis-cv. An agent must infer when this tool is preferable to those siblings.

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