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 implies a read-only, self-scoped operation by listing returned fields, but it doesn't state behavior when no profile exists, whether authentication is required, or that no mutation occurs.

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 scope first, followed by the field enumeration. The long list of fields earns its place as a stand-in for an output schema, though it is dense.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description's enumeration of returned profile sections is exactly the missing information an agent needs. It stops short of noting edge cases like an empty or unset profile.

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 baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. It correctly avoids inventing input 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?

States a specific verb ('Lee') and a scoped resource ('tu perfil de candidato en Work at a Startup'), then enumerates the exact profile sections covered. It clearly separates the candidate profile from other resources, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling ver-perfil-maestro (master profile).

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 framing 'tu perfil' implies this is for reading the caller's own profile, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to the alternative (ver-perfil-maestro, comparar-perfil). Usage is left to inference from the name and description.

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