profile_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining the auth flow coverage ('works on EVERY auth flow') and the source of identification (session token alone). No contradictions.

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 several sentences but each sentence adds necessary context: purpose, comparison, field explanations, and auth details. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Could be slightly more concise but not wasteful.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return fields (id as userId, companyId, defaultCaseFileId) and their significance for other operations. This is fully sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's output without additional schema.

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?

No parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description explicitly states 'No parameters', which aligns with the schema. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 returns the authenticated user's own profile. It distinguishes this from session_info by specifying when to use it (to obtain userId) and notes it is the only way on user-key deployments. The purpose is specific and well-differentiated from sibling tools.

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?

Explicit guidelines: prefer over session_info when needing userId, only way for user-key deployments, and explains the returned fields (id, companyId, defaultCaseFileId) with their uses. This is comprehensive guidance.

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