Get My Profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly labels the operation as 'Read', indicating a safe, non-destructive action, and lists the returned profile attributes. It does not mention auth prerequisites or error handling, but for a simple read-profile endpoint, the disclosure is adequate.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and resource, the second gives usage context. The Chinese intent examples are a useful addition for multilingual support and do not bloat the description.

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?

This is a simple, zero-parameter tool with no output schema. The description fully covers its purpose, typical use cases, and return content. No additional context is necessary for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because there are none to document, and the schema coverage is effectively complete.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('signed-in user profile from Microsoft Graph /me'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like users_get_profile by focusing on the current signed-in user. It also enumerates the exact data fields returned (email, display name, job title, department), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for questions about account identity, email address, display name, job title, and department.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like users_get_profile, but the 'me' scope is clearly implied, providing sufficient guidance for most cases.

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