paperclip_get_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds detailed return field structure, error codes, and authentication requirements. No contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling), front-loading the key purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting aids readability.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description fully documents the return fields. With one optional parameter, clear usage guidance, and error handling, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100% with description and enum for the single parameter. The description repeats this information and adds default value clarification, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the 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?

The description explicitly states it returns the current agent's full identity record, and distinguishes from the sibling paperclip_get_agent for retrieving other agents. The verb 'return' and resource 'full identity record' are specific and clear.

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 explicit when-to-use examples (start of run, after @-mention) and when-not-to-use (need another agent's details), pointing to the sibling tool. It also includes error handling guidance for authentication and not-found cases.

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