get_user_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returned fields (name, email, bio) but doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, or possible error cases. However, the word 'Get' strongly implies a read operation, and the listed fields provide some behavioral context.

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 single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose and scope without any wasted words or 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?

The tool has a single parameter and no output schema, so the description's listing of returned fields (name, email, bio) provides adequate coverage. It doesn't exhaustively document the full profile schema, but 'including' suggests more fields exist, which is acceptable for a simple lookup 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with user_id described as 'Canvas user ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It's sufficient but not enhanced.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function: 'Get any user's profile information including name, email, and bio.' It specifies a distinct resource (user profiles) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that target course-specific data or student analytics.

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?

Description indicates broad applicability ('Works for students, teachers, and any Canvas user'), giving clear context for when to use. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'any user' framing implicitly separates it from student-specific tools.

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