hackerone_get_hacker_profile

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully clarifies the scope (your own profile) and the dependency on your own reports, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, require authentication, or describe any rate-limit or side-effect behavior. These are implied by 'get' but not disclosed.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the subject ('Your profile') and followed by the returned fields. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description names key output fields, but no output schema exists and 'plus stats computed from your own reports' is vague about which stats. It also doesn't clarify that earnings are handled elsewhere, though the simple zero-parameter read makes the gap minor.

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 empty schema covers 100% of them, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to add.

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 identifies the resource precisely: the caller's own HackerOne profile, and enumerates the contents (username, reputation/signal/impact, and report-derived stats). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling report, program, and earnings tools, though it doesn't use an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool over hackerone_get_earnings, hackerone_search_reports, or other siblings. The description implies 'use when you want your profile,' but it never states prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative conditions.

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