mindmeister_get_user

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact API endpoint (GET /users/me) and the return format (JSON with user profile fields), which complements the annotations without 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 concise with only four lines, front-loading the action and resource. Every sentence provides necessary information, including the endpoint and return type, with no redundant wording.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, straightforward get request) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior. It mentions the endpoint and return fields, which is sufficient for an agent to understand usage.

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 in the input schema, so the description does not need to explain any. With 100% schema coverage and zero parameters, the baseline score of 4 applies. The description usefully notes the return fields even though it's not parameter-related.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'authenticated MindMeister user profile', listing specific fields such as id, name, email, and account details. It uniquely identifies this tool among siblings that focus on maps, images, and preferences.

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 implies usage for retrieving the current user's profile with no parameters needed. It does not explicitly specify when not to use it, but the context of zero parameters and the nature of the tool make it clear. No alternatives are needed as no sibling tool provides user profile information.

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