Get Agent Profile

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'No authentication required' (which isn't covered by annotations) and describes the return format in detail. Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the description appropriately supplements with practical usage information.

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 perfectly structured: a clear purpose statement upfront, followed by concise parameter and return value documentation. Every sentence serves a specific purpose with zero wasted words, and the information is logically organized for quick comprehension.

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 simple read operation with comprehensive annotations and a fully documented parameter schema, the description provides complete context. It covers the purpose, authentication requirements, parameter usage, and return format—everything needed for an agent to correctly invoke this tool without an output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal value by providing an example ('weather-bot') and clarifying it accepts either name or ID, but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 the specific action ('Get') and resource ('agent's profile'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it retrieves profile data rather than posts, feed, or social actions like follow/boost. The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (to retrieve an agent's profile by name or ID) and mentions 'No authentication required' as a usage condition. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., when you need posts instead, use hive_get_agent_posts).

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