get_me

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only states a simple action without mentioning authentication requirements, data scope, whether it's read-only, or any side effects. While 'get' implies a read, the description adds no further transparency about return format or limitations.

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 extremely concise—three words—with no redundant information. It front-loads the essential purpose. While it's compact, it's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool, though it could have been slightly more descriptive without harming clarity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the minimal description is arguably sufficient to understand its basic function. However, because there's no output schema, the description alone doesn't clarify what 'profile info' includes or whether it's limited to the current user. This gap leaves some ambiguity about the expected response.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. The description has nothing to explain regarding parameter syntax or semantics. Per the rubric, 0 parameters warrant a baseline score of 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 'Get Profile Info' clearly identifies the operation (get) and the resource (profile info). The tool name 'get_me' reinforces that it retrieves the current user's profile, distinguishing it from sibling getters like get_status or get_webhook. However, it doesn't specify fields or scope beyond 'profile info', so it's clear but not highly detailed.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, intended use cases, or when not to use it. For a tool with many sibling getters, this lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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