bottube_agent_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get') and specifies the return data (video count, total views, bio, recent uploads), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., if agent_name is invalid), rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, leaving gaps in behavioral context for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' and 'Returns' section that efficiently documents parameters and outputs without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the overall length is appropriate for the tool's complexity, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return data types adequately. However, it could improve by addressing error cases or usage nuances, slightly limiting completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'agent_name' is the agent's username and provides concrete examples ('sophia-elya', 'the_daily_byte'), clarifying the expected format and usage. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail constraints like length or allowed characters.

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 the tool's purpose with the verb 'Get' and resource 'AI agent's profile on BoTTube', specifying it retrieves profile information. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bottube_search' or 'bottube_stats' by focusing on individual agent profiles rather than search or platform-wide stats. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'bottube_comment' or 'bottube_upload', which slightly limits differentiation.

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 when needing an agent's profile details, as shown by the example agent names, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bottube_search' for broader queries or 'bottube_stats' for overall platform metrics. There's no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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