Get Concept2 User Profile

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful context by enumerating the exact returned fields (id, username, first_name, etc.) and documenting the 'me' alias for the authenticated user, which goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 well-organized: a one-line purpose, a critical note about 'me', a return-field list, parameter definitions, and examples. Each section is concise and directly useful, with no filler.

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 read-only Get with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description effectively covers all necessary context: return fields, parameter semantics, defaults, and usage examples. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage). The description repeats these details and provides usage examples, but does not introduce new meaning beyond what the schema already states, aligning with the baseline 3 for high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource statement: 'Retrieve a Concept2 Logbook user's profile information,' clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools focused on results and challenges. The special 'me' behavior for the authenticated user is also explicitly called out.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for fetching user profiles, with examples for both own and specific user IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use is unambiguous given the sibling tool names.

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