get_user_profile

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool returns only the current user's profile (not another user's), which is a scoping constraint. The verb 'Get' also implies a read-only operation, and with no parameters, there is minimal behavior to disclose. However, it does not explicitly state authentication requirements or error conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, followed by a brief parenthetical of examples. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 this is a zero-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data is returned (name, ID, coach status, etc.) and scopes it to the current user. It could have described the return format in more detail, but for such a simple tool, the description is sufficient to guide an agent.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning since there are none, and the schema coverage is 100% trivially. The parenthetical examples of profile fields add some semantic context to what the tool will return, which is helpful.

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 ('Get'), identifies the resource ('current user's profile'), and gives concrete examples of the profile fields (name, ID, coach status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_team_info or get_recent_exercises, which target different resources.

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 simply states what the tool does without context on appropriate use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. There is no mention of scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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