mess_get_me

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

Annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), indicating a safe, non-destructive, repeatable operation. The description adds minimal context by specifying it returns a 'JSON User object' with listed fields, but doesn't disclose additional traits like error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements beyond what's implied by the params. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by Args and Returns sections. It's concise with no wasted words, though the Returns section could be slightly more efficient by integrating with the output schema. Overall, it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (1 parameter), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return structure, though it lacks usage guidelines and deeper behavioral context, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'params: auth_key or session', adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail the semantics of these options (e.g., when to use auth_key vs. session, or that they're mutually exclusive), and the schema's definitions provide more detail (e.g., env var usage). This partial compensation justifies a baseline score.

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: 'Get the currently logged-in user's profile.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('currently logged-in user's profile'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'mess_get_info' or 'mess_get_auth_key_info', which might also retrieve user-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 (e.g., authentication state), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'mess_get_info'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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