Get profile settings

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already cover the basic safety and external-data profile. The description adds useful context about returned profile fields and a unit-conversion caveat, but it does not discuss authentication, caching, rate limits, or response shape.

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 definition is two compact sentences with no waste. The field list is front-loaded, and the final sentence adds a practical caveat that helps an agent use the returned measurement system correctly.

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 gives enough context by listing the main profile fields returned and warning about measurement units. It stops short of describing the full response structure or any error behavior, but the essential calling context is present.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and it correctly focuses on the returned profile data instead.

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 clearly identifies the resource as profile settings and enumerates the key fields returned, such as display name, measurement system, time zone, and training days. It is distinguishable from sibling metric tools because it is explicitly about profile preferences rather than health or activity data, though it does not use an explicit retrieval verb.

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 provides one actionable usage instruction: check measurementSystem before converting units for the user. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling profile-adjacent tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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