Profile

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

The field list (email, name, org memberships, premium status) is genuinely useful because there is no output schema, so the agent learns what the payload contains. However, the description calls this a 'Get' while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, an unresolved tension the description never reconciles, and no auth/scope requirements are disclosed despite openWorldHint=true.

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 short sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler; the parenthetical field list earns its space because no output schema exists. Slightly terse for the tool's surrounding confusion around parameters.

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 simple self-profile read the description covers the 'what', but with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and annotations that do not confirm read-only behavior, it leaves the agent guessing about inputs and safety. Complete enough to attempt a call, not complete enough to call confidently.

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 coverage is 0% and the three parameters (form, params, json_body) have titles but no types or descriptions, so an agent cannot tell whether any input is expected. The description contributes nothing here - it never says the call takes no required arguments, which is the key fact for a profile-fetch endpoint.

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 ('Get') and resource ('own user profile') with the scope narrowed to the caller's own account, and enumerates the returned data (email, name, org memberships, premium status). That 'own' qualifier implicitly separates it from the admin-facing vaultwarden_get_user / vaultwarden_get_user_json and from the mutating vaultwarden_put_profile / vaultwarden_post_profile siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the ~250 siblings, and no prerequisite stated (e.g. that an authenticated session/token is needed). The only implicit cue is the word 'own', which is carried mostly by the name rather than explained.

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