Get my profile

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behavioral nuances: null/empty properties are omitted, 'mail' is null for accounts without Exchange mailboxes, personal accounts return empty work fields, and userPrincipalName is always present. This adds meaningful runtime expectations the schema cannot convey.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: default set, how to override, omission semantics, and field-specific edge cases. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids repetition or fluff.

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?

With only one optional parameter, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: default projection, selection behavior, and interpretation of absent keys. No critical operational detail is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already thoroughly describes the select parameter, its format, examples, validation, and default behavior. The description's 'Pass select to ask for different properties instead' is helpful but does not substantially exceed what the schema already documents.

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 and resource: 'Returns the signed-in user's own Entra ID profile from /me'. It clearly scopes the operation to the caller's own profile intest and enumerates the default fields, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like me_get_mailbox_settings.

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 gives clear context: this is the tool for the signed-in user's own profile. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the '/me' scoping and default property list are enough to signal when it is appropriate. No exclusion guidance is provided, so slightly short of a 5.

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