Project Tessera

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. While 'View' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, data freshness, rate limits, or what happens when no profile exists. For a tool accessing personal user data with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('View your user profile') followed by a comprehensive but concise list of data categories. Every element earns its place by specifying what information the user can expect to see. There's no wasted language or redundancy.

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 the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, as a data retrieval tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention whether this returns real-time or cached data, authentication requirements, or data format. The existence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for some behavioral context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described as having no parameters). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a 4 because it correctly focuses on what the tool returns rather than trying to explain non-existent inputs.

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's purpose with 'View your user profile' and lists specific data categories (preferences, decisions, top topics, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on personal user data rather than system operations or content management. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools like 'session_interactions' or 'recent_sessions' that might also contain user 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be more suitable. Among the many sibling tools, there's no indication of how this fits into a workflow or when it should be selected over similar tools that might access user data.

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