HTB User Profile

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: by default it returns a curated block rather than the raw payload. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes, so it clears the (lower) annotated bar but does not exceed it.

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?

Two sentences with the resource and field list front-loaded and the flag note last; nothing is wasted. The 11-field enumeration is slightly list-heavy, but it substitutes for a missing output schema and so earns its space.

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?

With no output schema, listing the curated fields is exactly what the description should do, and the full=true escape hatch is explained. Safety is covered by annotations, so for a zero-required-parameter read tool the definition is close to complete; only the sibling boundary is unaddressed.

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 single 'full' parameter is already documented in the schema as returning the raw API payload. The description restates the same semantics rather than adding format, size, or cost implications, so the baseline 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the user's HTB profile') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent immediately knows this is a read of the caller's own profile. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings like htb_user_progress or htb_user_activity, which an agent must infer from the name alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the field list and the 'Set full=true for the raw profile payload' note hint at when the raw variant is wanted, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or any pointer to alternative sibling tools. An agent can call it correctly, but must guess the boundary against htb_user_progress/htb_user_activity.

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