Get Threads Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the required THREADS_ACCESS_TOKEN environment variable and specifying the exact return contract. It does not contradict 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 three short sentences, each earning its place: one for purpose, one for return values, and one for the required environment variable. The primary action is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter. The description covers the action, the required auth context, and the return fields even though there is no output schema. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, response_format, has a clear description, an enum, and a default value. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema fully documents what the parameter does.

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 and resource: 'Gets the authenticated user's Threads profile.' It also enumerates the exact returned fields (User ID, username, name, bio, and profile picture URL), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like threads_get_post, threads_get_posts, and threads_get_user_insights.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for the authenticated user's own profile, and it notes the THREADS_ACCESS_TOKEN requirement. However, it does not provide any explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as threads_get_user or threads_get_user_insights, so the usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.

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