get_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states scope requirements for email, country, and product fields, which is a key behavioral constraint. It implies a read-only operation, though it does not describe behavior in case of missing scopes or authentication failures—a minor gap given the simplicity.

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?

Exactly two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose and returned fields; the second adds scope prerequisites. Both sentences are necessary and front-loaded, earning their place.

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 simple parameter-less endpoint with no output schema, the description fully covers what is returned and what permissions are needed. An agent can invoke it correctly without needing additional details. No missing critical information.

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 schema is trivially complete. Per calibration, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and it appropriately focuses on response fields instead.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'current user's Spotify profile', and lists the specific fields returned (display name, user ID, email, country, subscription level). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_playlists, which retrieve a different resource. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context by specifying the required OAuth scopes (user-read-email and user-read-private) for certain fields, which tells the agent about prerequisites. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but no sibling tool offers the same functionality, so the context is sufficient.

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