bsky_get_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 but provides almost none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when a profile doesn't exist. The single sentence offers no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 - a single Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for complete understanding, it's perfectly structured and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 that there's an output schema (which will define the return structure), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a profile retrieval tool with no annotations and 2 parameters (one required), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but leaves too many behavioral and parameter questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for both parameters, the description provides no information about what 'handle' and 'acting_handle' mean, their format, or how they differ. The description doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, leaving both parameters semantically undefined for the agent.

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 verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('Blueskyのプロフィール' - Bluesky profile), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like bsky_update_profile (which modifies profiles) and bsky_search_users (which searches for users). However, it doesn't specify what profile information is retrieved, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose bsky_get_profile over bsky_search_users for finding user information, or how it relates to bsky_resolve_handle. There's no context about prerequisites, authentication requirements, or typical use cases.

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