vibo_get_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's behavioral contribution is limited to listing returned fields and their purpose. It does not add new behavioral traits beyond what the annotation suggests, but it is consistent and adequate.

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 two sentences, no unnecessary words, and the verb 'Get' is front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the tool's action and value without redundancy.

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?

Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and suggests a use case. It lacks details on potential errors or authentication, but for a simple read-only profile tool, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema covers everything. The description adds no parameter info, but per the guidelines, 0 parameters earns a baseline of 4. It does not need to compensate beyond explaining what the tool returns.

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 it retrieves the signed-in user's profile with specific fields (id, name, email, phone, locale, and connected services). It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on events, songs, sections, etc., making the purpose unique and unambiguous.

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 clear context by mentioning using the returned _id to recognize the user's own songs/contacts. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the lack of overlapping profile tools.

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