monday_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 only mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the response contains. Significant gaps in transparency.

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 short (two sentences) and avoids fluff, but the structure is poor: routing context is mixed with parameter description, and the operation name is repeated unnecessarily. It earns a 3 for being concise but not well-organized.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain what the tool actually does. For a simple read operation, the agent needs to know the purpose and argument structure. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It says 'arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation' but gives no hint about expected keys, values, or format. This is insufficient for an agent to construct valid input.

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 'Monday connector operation `get_me`' which is nearly a tautology. It does not clarify that the tool retrieves information about the current authenticated user, nor does it distinguish it from similar tools like `whoami`. The purpose is vague and under-specified.

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 (e.g., `monday_get_item` or `whoami`). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Usage inference is entirely left to the agent.

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