get_myself

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, potential errors, or response structure. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. There is no wasted wording, and it efficiently conveys everything an agent needs to understand the tool's purpose.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a simple self-profile read, the description is largely complete. It could be improved by explicitly noting the return value (e.g., 'returns the user object'), but given the simplicity and the lack of complex constraints, a 4 is appropriate.

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 description need not explain any parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly implies no inputs are required; it adds no extraneous parameter information.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('profile of the currently authenticated Jira user'). It is specific and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on issues, projects, or comments.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but given that no sibling tool serves a similar purpose (e.g., no other user-profile tool exists), the usage context is implicitly obvious. Still, the description does not explicitly state 'use this when you need the current user's profile,' so it earns a 3 rather than a higher score.

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