get_my_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly discloses the auth dependency and what data will be returned. It doesn't mention side effects, but this appears to be a read-only profile lookup; the access warning is valuable context beyond what the schema alone would provide.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The access note is separated clearly and avoids bloating the description. No filler or repetition.

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: what it returns and what authorization setup is needed. It could mention the relationship to 'primary profile' versus other profiles, but that is a minor gap and not required for correct invocation.

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 zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The description still adds value by stating what the returned profile contains, which is the relevant semantic content here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current user's primary profile' and lists what it returns (profile details, theme, custom links, public proof display settings). This makes it distinguishable from siblings like get_current_user and get_profile, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It clearly states the required setup: a Proof account, PROOF_API_KEY, and server restart. The note 'start_login does NOT open this tool' is an explicit exclusion that prevents an agent from trying to authenticate via the login flow. It does not describe when to use this tool rather than get_profile or get_current_user, but the context is clear enough.

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