Get my profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds useful context: the profile is public and requires an authenticated account. It also clarifies the scope of the data returned, going slightly beyond the annotations.

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 efficient sentences: the first states the operation and result fields, and the second handles sibling differentiation. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple, read-only, has no required parameters, a fully documented optional parameter, an output schema, and a description that names the returned fields. The description plus structured metadata provides everything an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 only parameter, response_format, is fully documented in the schema with an enum, default, and description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter detail, and it does not meaningfully add beyond what the schema already states.

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 names a specific action ('Fetch'), the resource ('public profile of the authenticated account'), and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes the tool from its closest sibling, repovive_whoami, by explicitly stating the difference.

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?

It explicitly says this tool complements repovive_whoami and that whoami returns 'account/billing state instead,' giving the agent a clear rule for choosing between the two. This is direct when-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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