get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns static and dynamic facts, implying a read operation, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, data freshness, or limitations on call frequency. More transparency is needed for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and key details are front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return format better than 'static facts and dynamic facts'. The vague description, combined with many sibling tools, leaves the agent without enough information to understand the full scope and when to use this tool.

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 schema has one optional parameter 'projectId' with a description. The tool description adds that omitting it gives the global profile, which clarifies the default behavior beyond the schema. This adds value.

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 gets the user profile, specifies it returns static and dynamic facts, and mentions scoping by projectId. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_profile' and 'get_context_profile'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_profile', 'get_context_profile', or other query tools. The description only implies that including projectId scopes the profile, but does not explain when to use the global profile or the scoped one.

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