get_user_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and 'authenticated user' implies authentication is required, but it does not explicitly state the read-only nature, potential errors, or response format beyond the listed fields. It provides minimal but sufficient transparency for a simple read operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the verb, resource, and return contents in a compact, readable format.

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 zero-parameter, simple read operation, the description provides complete context: it names the resource, lists the returned fields, and implies authentication requirements. The absence of an output schema is compensated for by the description listing the return values.

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 no parameters, and the schema is empty, making schema coverage trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter info because none is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as the authenticated user's profile, listing its key contents (id, name, public profile URL). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling workout/routine tools, which all concern other resource types.

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 context is clear: this tool is for retrieving the current user's profile information. While no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are mentioned, there are no sibling tools for user profile data, so the intended usage is unambiguous and requires no further guidance.

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