vibefix_my_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states it requires an API key and implies a read operation ('Get'). However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention potential errors, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds value beyond the empty schema but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, return fields, and a prerequisite. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description specifies the return fields (XP, level, etc.), which is sufficient for a simple profile retrieval. It also includes the authentication requirement. Missing details like error handling or confirmation of read-only nature, but overall adequate for a tool with zero parameters.

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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per rubric guidelines, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description adds meaning by listing the return fields, which compensates for the lack of 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 the tool retrieves the user's VibeFix developer profile with specific fields (XP, level, wallet, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vibefix_my_bounties or vibefix_my_submissions, which focus on other aspects of the user's data.

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 mentions the requirement for VIBEFIX_API_KEY, implying authentication context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use vibefix_my_profile vs. vibefix_get_bounty). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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