s21_get_my_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation and lists returned data fields, which is useful, but it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the data is live or cached. For a simple profile retrieval this is acceptable, but not richly transparent.

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 in Spanish that states the purpose and the key output fields without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 low complexity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the profile contains and the platform it comes from. It does not specify the exact response envelope or whether only the current user's profile is returned, but the tool name 'my_profile' and the wording 'del alumno' make that fairly clear.

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 there is nothing the description needs to add beyond what the empty input schema already shows. The listed fields are return values rather than parameters, which is not a documentation gap. Baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool 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 names a specific verb ('Obtiene'), a clear resource ('el perfil del alumno'), and the platform context ('Siglo 21 Canvas'), plus the expected fields. This makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling tools, none of which target the current user's profile.

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 intended use is implied by the resource name and description: retrieving the current student profile. However, there is no explicit statement about when to choose this over other tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. For a zero-parameter, uniquely scoped tool, the absence of explicit alternatives is a minor gap.

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