get_my_profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail—'sin registrar una visita al perfil'—that is not present in annotations, clarifying that this call does not increment profile visit counts. This goes beyond what structured metadata provides, though it could have elaborated on return format or side effects more.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then appends the important behavioral caveat. There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and side-effect profile.

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-only tool, the description is fairly complete: it names the resource and the key behavioral guarantee. However, without an output schema, it does not specify what fields constitute the profile, which could leave an agent unsure of the exact response shape. Given the simplicity and common understanding of 'profile', this is a minor gap, so 4 is appropriate.

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 no parameters, and the schema coverage is trivially 100% (empty object). The description adds no parameter documentation because there are none, which is appropriate. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description is consistent with that.

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 states a specific verb ('Lee' = reads) and resource ('perfil de la cuenta autenticada' = profile of the authenticated account), and adds a precise behavioral nuance ('sin registrar una visita'). This clearly distinguishes it from other read tools like get_my_preferences or get_my_grades by specifying exactly what it fetches and that it does not affect visit tracking.

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 usage for retrieving the authenticated user's profile, which is clear from context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like get_my_preferences or auth_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. The usage is implied rather than explicit.

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