simplengat_user_me

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It communicates a read-only GET operation and hints at the returned information, but it does not disclose authentication requirements, possible errors, or response shape.

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 short fragments with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the endpoint is included 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only endpoint, the description is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. Gaps like auth behavior and exact return fields exist, but the simplicity of the tool reduces their impact.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by naming example response fields ('credits, role'), even though no parameter documentation 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 ('View') and a specific resource ('SimpleNGAT user info'), then reinforces it with the exact endpoint GET /api/v1/user/me. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling image/video/voice tools.

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 intended use is clear: retrieve the current user's credits, role, and related account info. There is no overlap with siblings, so no explicit exclusion is needed, though the description does not spell out 'use this when you need current user account details' in those words.

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