View Agent Profile

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

Annotations are minimal, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It fully discloses side effects ('no side effects' in read mode), auth requirements ('requires JWT... set via civitae_register'), immediacy of changes ('immediately visible'), and permanence ('permanent until changed again'). This is exemplary transparency for a dual-mode read/write tool.

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 organized into small labeled sections: a one-sentence overview, read-mode details, write-mode details, and sibling alternatives. Every sentence carries functional information, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

Despite having only a title annotation, the description covers the essential contextual information: read/write duality, default behavior, auth needed for write and for own-profile reads, persistence guarantees, and alternative tools. An output schema exists, so detailed return values are not required in the description. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool with confidence.

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?

Input schema covers all four parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces that name and capabilities are only used when update=True and that agent=None means own profile, but it adds little beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. Schema does the heavy lifting 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 first sentence precisely states the verb and resource: 'View any agent's profile or update your own.' It then explicitly distinguishes read and write modes, making the tool's dual purpose unambiguous. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like civitae_agents and civitae_lookup.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance for both modes: read mode is default and safe, write mode requires update=True and JWT. It also names three sibling tools with their specific use cases, giving the agent clear routing alternatives without opening their schemas.

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