get-my-member-info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively explains that the tool uses the API token automatically, requires no parameters, and returns the complete member profile. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or error conditions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, examples, and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the bulleted list efficiently presents return fields without unnecessary elaboration.

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 0-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit output structure documentation, though the bulleted list partially compensates for this.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds significant value by explicitly stating 'No parameters needed - it automatically uses your authentication token' and providing example usage with empty parameters, which helps the agent understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 specific action ('Get information about the authenticated user') and resource ('Dooray member profile'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-task or get-project-list by focusing on the user's own profile rather than project/task data. It explicitly mentions retrieving the member ID for use in other operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('often the first tool to call to get your member ID for use in other tools like list-tasks') and includes practical examples of use cases. It clearly differentiates this from other tools by emphasizing its role in obtaining authentication context.

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