get-profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral transparency. It discloses that internal identifiers are stripped, that the tool requires authentication, and that it raises an error when no token is set. These are useful behavioral details beyond the raw purpose.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and each sentence adds value: purpose, sanitization behavior, and alternative. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete for a simple zero-parameter tool. It lists the returned fields, explains sanitization, mentions authentication/error behavior, and gives a clear alternative for a different use case.

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, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter details.

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 clearly states 'Return the current user profile' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the sanitised public fields. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'whoami' by contrasting error behavior and return shape.

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?

Explicitly says 'For a non-erroring identity check, use `whoami` which returns { authenticated, user }', providing clear guidance on when to use an alternative. It also notes the authentication requirement, helping the agent decide if this tool is appropriate.

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