Get my BugSecure profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description focuses on useful behavioral details: what fields are returned, the effect of stats=true, that contact details are never returned, and that badges are handled elsewhere. This adds meaningful context 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?

The description is tightly written: a list of fields, an optional stats modifier, a clear exclusion, and a pointer to the relevant sibling. Every sentence earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main purpose, the optional behavior, what is not returned, and the avenue for badges. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The schema describes 'stats' as returning report statistics and last 12 months of activity, but the description elaborates with specifics: report counts by outcome and severity, earnings, and monthly activity. This adds meaning beyond the schema parameter description.

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?

States a specific verb ('get'), resource ('the signed-in user's BugSecure account and researcher profile'), and enumerates the contained fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to the signed-in user and pointing to list_badges for badges, so an agent knows it's the self-profile endpoint.

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 makes clear this is for the signed-in user's own profile and mentions list_badges as the alternative for badges, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_researcher_profile or other profile-related tools. It provides usage context ('signed-in user') but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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