get_user_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only lists output fields and says nothing about read-only behavior, error conditions, missing data handling, or authentication requirements. The 'get' prefix implies a read operation, but that is not explicitly stated, and no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the resource ('User profile basics') and immediately enumerates the returned fields. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately conveys the primary fields returned. However, the word 'basics' suggests the list may be a subset of the full profile, leaving slight ambiguity about whether fields like email or avatar are excluded. Still, for a simple parameterless getter, it is reasonably 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 tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter information to document. Per the calibration rules, a 0-parameter tool starts at baseline 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none is needed.

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 lists the specific fields returned (display name, unit system, birth year, gender, height, weight), making the purpose clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name for 'get', and 'User profile basics' is a noun phrase rather than a full action statement. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_body_composition or get_devices because it covers general profile attributes, but the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_body_composition or get_fitness_metrics, which might also return height/weight or other profile-derived data. No context is provided about typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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