profile_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds detailed behavioral context: it identifies the caller from the session token, works without email, returns companyId and defaultCaseFileId, and that the id field is the userId UUID. This goes beyond 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?

The description is a well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then expands on auth flows, field significance, comparison with sibling, and parameter count. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains return fields (id, companyId, defaultCaseFileId), auth flows, usage recommendations, and confirms no parameters. No critical information 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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description explicitly states 'No parameters' and adds value by explaining what the tool returns without requiring any input, which is helpful for understanding its usage.

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 states 'Returns the authenticated user's own profile' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like session_info by explicitly recommending its use when needing the userId, and it explains that it's the only way to get userId in user-key deployments.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: prefer it over session_info for userId, and it's the only way to get userId in user-key deployments. It also mentions that it works on every auth flow, covering use cases.

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