get_me

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it does imply the call is scoped to the authenticated session ("connected account"), which is useful auth context. However, it never states that the operation is read-only and side-effect free, nor anything about rate limits or failure when the session is unauthenticated — small gaps for a zero-argument getter, but gaps nonetheless.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is a noun fragment rather than a complete clause, which makes it marginally less crisp than a verb-led statement like "Return the authenticated user's profile," but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return fields need not be described, and with zero parameters the surface area is minimal — the description covers what is needed to select the tool. The remaining gap is the missing statement of what the account info is useful for and that the call is a safe read.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or confuses the empty schema.

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?

"Info about the connected Telegram account" names the specific resource (the authenticated account) and implicitly distinguishes it from account-adjacent siblings such as get_chat_info or get_participants, which operate on other users/chats. It is clear but not stated as an explicit verb+resource pair, and the differentiation from siblings is left implicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this to identify the authenticated user before calling update_profile, or to resolve 'me' when a chat/message tool needs the current user id. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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