agora_get_user_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves user data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or handles errors. The mention of return values adds some context, but key behavioral traits like permissions or constraints are missing, making it insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds return value details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without waste, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating there are no parameters.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return format, but lacks behavioral context like authentication needs or error handling. For a read-only tool with no complex inputs, this is adequate but leaves gaps that could affect reliable agent usage.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema, but since there are no parameters, this is acceptable. It provides a baseline level of clarity without redundancy, though it could briefly note the lack of inputs for completeness.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current user's profile and shipping addresses in Agora'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'agora_get_user_orders' or 'agora_get_order', which might also retrieve user-related data, so it doesn't achieve full sibling differentiation.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as whether it requires authentication or how it differs from sibling tools like 'agora_get_user_orders' for order history. This lack of usage context leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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