connect_me

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether data is cached. The description is minimal and does not mention any side effects or limitations, which is a gap given the absence of annotation support.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and the purpose addition is brief and purposeful. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a clear read-only purpose, the description covers the essential: what is returned (profile, scores, linked accounts) and when to use it (identify the API key owner). It omits details like response format or pagination, but these are not critical for this simple, targeted tool. Slightly more detail on the nature of the response could push it to 5, but it is adequately complete.

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 provides no parameter descriptions. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly does not attempt to fabricate parameter details. It implicitly conveys that no arguments are needed, which is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and clear resource ('Connect profile, scores, and all linked accounts for the API key owner'), and adds the specific purpose of identifying the key owner. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_lookup or connect_scores_by_account, which are likely for other entities.

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 clear context: use to identify which user the key belongs to. It implicitly suggests this is the tool when you need the current API key owner's data, but does not explicitly exclude or contrast with sibling tools like connect_lookup or connect_scores_by_username. Good enough for the intended use.

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