get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' appropriately conveys a read operation, and the parenthetical reveals a meaningful default behavior. However, it does not mention response contents, error behavior, authentication expectations, or any rate limits, so behavioral transparency is only partially addressed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. The core action appears first, and the optional-handle nuance is contained in a compact parenthetical. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the operation and explains the only parameter's omission behavior. It does not describe the shape of the returned profile or error conditions, but those are largely inferable from the tool name and domain. Slightly more detail on response or auth context would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains the handle parameter as 'Handle to look up (omit for own profile)'. The description essentially repeats this same information, adding no new semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('Bluesky user profile'), so the tool's purpose is unambiguous. It also adds the nuance that omitting the handle returns the caller's own profile. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_users or update_profile, leaving some differentiation to the tool name and schema.

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 parenthetical 'omit handle for own profile' provides a concrete usage condition: use no handle for your own profile, or supply a handle for another profile. This is clear situational context. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives such as search_users for finding handles, so it falls short of explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance.

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