share_profile

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

Transparently discloses that the tool is a stub returning '{ supported: false }' until federation lands. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, which it meets by clearly stating the return behavior and limitations.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence that conveys purpose, scope, and current state without unnecessary words. No fluff or redundant information.

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 stub tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states the intended behavior and current limited implementation. However, it lacks context on when the tool might become functional, which could be helpful for planning.

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%, so the schema already documents the three parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or formatting details beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Clearly states the verb 'share' and resource 'friend's profile' with another agent, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_friend' or 'link_identity'. The reserved status is also noted, which adds clarity about intended functionality.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only notes it is reserved and returns unsupported, implying it should not be used currently, but does not specify proper usage context or provide alternatives among siblings.

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