linkedin_me

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds valuable context by listing the returned fields and the required OAuth scopes, which informs the agent of prerequisites and output shape. However, it lacks any mention of failure modes, rate limits, or behavior when scopes are unsupported—important for robust invocation but not critical for a simple call.

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, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the precise return fields and required scopes. Every word contributes to understanding, with zero fluff or repetition—an exemplar of concise, structured writing.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential operational details: what it does, what it returns (field list), and prerequisites (scopes). It could mention authentication or error handling, but the simplicity of the operation makes this largely complete. The explicit field list compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 description appropriately says nothing about them. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and since there is no schema to elaborate on, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It correctly focuses on the operation and output.

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 action (Get), the resource (authenticated member's profile), and enumerates the specific fields returned (sub, name, email, locale, picture). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling `linkedin_get_profile` by emphasizing 'authenticated member's' (i.e., the caller's own profile), giving the tool a unique, unambiguous purpose.

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 specifies required scopes (`openid profile email`), which is a useful prerequisite, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like `linkedin_get_profile`. An agent might be uncertain when to use this tool vs. a generic profile getter; the context of 'authenticated member' implies it's for the caller, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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