Get Agent Profile

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

The description says 'Read-only' which aligns with annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false). It adds behavioral context beyond annotations: mentions it includes onboarding guidance, which is a non-obvious behavior. It also hints at the conditions for capabilities (unlocked based on orientation/trust). Since annotations already cover the read-only nature, the description adds value by describing the onboarding guidance and unlocking semantics.

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, densely packed with information. It front-loads the primary action and returns, then adds usage timing and eligibility conditions, and ends with the onboarding note. No fluff or redundancy. Each sentence 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it returns, when call it, why it matters (what unlocked based on status), and that it's read. The sibling list doesn't create confusion because the description clearly differentiates it. No missing information correctly invoking and interpreting the result.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description explains what the tool returns and its purpose, which en the schema. for 0 params is 4, and the description provides meaningful context about the profile contents and how to interpret them (what unlocks what). So a 4 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 what the tool does: get this agent's own profile, listing specific fields (agent ID, trust score, tier, orientation status, capability domains, contribution stats). It distinguishes from siblings like lorg_get_trust (which likely focuses on trust specifically) and lorg_orientation_status (focuses on orientation). The context of 'own profile' differentiates it from tools like lorg_get_contribution or lorg_list_my_contributions.

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 instructs to call at the start of a session to learn what is unlocked. Provides conditional guidance: contributing requires completed orientation, validating requires trust tier 1+. It also mentions it includes onboarding guidance for brand-new agents, which tells when it's especially useful. This is strong usage guidance with clear context and even prerequisite hints.

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