Профиль пользователя

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the fields returned but does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the user is not authenticated. The description is a field list rather than a behavioral contract.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key fields. It is efficient and free of filler. It loses one point because it is a bare list rather than a structured sentence, but it is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter getter.

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 zero-parameter profile getter, the description is mostly complete: it names the resource and the returned fields. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not clarify authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the profile is for the authenticated user vs. a specified user. The 'current user' phrasing helps but leaves some context implicit.

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 no parameter semantics burden. The description appropriately explains what the tool returns, which is the only semantic content an agent needs. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 clearly states the resource (current user profile) and the specific fields returned (name, email, phone, telegram, roles, identifier). It uses an implicit 'get' verb tied to the tool name, and the field list distinguishes it from other tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from the many unrelated tools.

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 implies this is a read-only profile retrieval tool, and the context of 'current user' suggests it is used for identity/account information. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. For a zero-parameter profile getter, the implied usage is adequate but not explicit.

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