get_me

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It does so by detailing the return shape (scopes, limits, usage, capabilities) and noting that the call is cheap and returns a fixed-shape record. No side effects or destructive actions are implied, and the description is consistent.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, a usage tip, and a bulleted list of return fields. While it is somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value, and it avoids redundancy. Slightly more conciseness could be achieved, but it remains effective.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by the return description), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and exactly what it returns, covering all necessary context for an AI agent.

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, so the input schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate. With zero params, a baseline of 4 is given per calibration.

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 tool returns the configured API key's permissions, limits, and current usage. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('me'), and the returned fields are enumerated. Among siblings, it uniquely provides authentication context, distinguishing it from tools like engine_info or get_catalog.

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 explicitly advises calling early in a session before planning work, to avoid discovering limits through failed calls. It labels the tool as 'Cheap,' suggesting low cost, which guides when to invoke.

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