Get user profile

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

The word 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is sufficient for this simple tool. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not mention authentication or rate limits, though the tool is likely minimal in those regards.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and returned fields without unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool returns by listing fields. It lacks detail on response structure but is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's value.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single required parameter 'username'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'RetroAchievements username', so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('summary profile data for a RetroAchievements user'), and lists key fields (points, rank, motto, member-since, avatar). It is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ra_user_summary, which may have similar purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ra_user_summary or ra_user_awards. The description does not provide context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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