get_my_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the user is not authenticated. The description only states what it gets, without any side-effect or behavioral notes. Since it's a 'get' operation, the read-only nature is implied but not explicitly 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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. It provides a clear and efficient explanation without any filler. Every word adds value, and it does not repeat information already in the schema or tool name.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema (which likely documents the return structure), the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does and what data it returns. However, it omits any mention of authentication prerequisites or when this tool is appropriate, which slightly reduces completeness. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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, and the schema confirms that (empty properties). Per the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter info, so a score of 4 is appropriate. The description's mention of specific fields (name, bio, follower count, tweet count) adds a bit of context but is not necessary for parameters.

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 states 'Get the authenticated Twitter user's profile', specifying the exact resource and verb. It distinguishes from sibling get_user_profile by specifying 'authenticated user's', making it clear this is for the current user's own profile. The fields listed (name, bio, follower count, tweet count) further clarify the scope.

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 usage context is implied by the phrase 'authenticated user's', but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_profile. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned. The description doesn't direct the agent to choose this over get_user_profile for own profile, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as being logged in.

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