vibo_get_me

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks it as read-only, and the description adds meaningful detail about the response contents (profile fields, connected accounts) and the semantics of _id. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The first sentence states exactly what is returned; the second adds a practical hint. Every word earns its place, no fluff.

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 simple no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what is returned, which fields are included, and how to use the result. No gaps.

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, and with 100% schema coverage the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters and instead focuses on response data, which is more valuable here.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('the signed-in Vibo user's profile'), enumerating the returned fields. It also adds a unique use case ('Use the returned _id to recognize your own songs/contacts'), which distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on self-identity.

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 a clear use case ('recognize your own songs/contacts') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the tool's purpose is unambiguous and there are no sibling tools that overlap.

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