safe_mind_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the important traits: it is read-only, requires an API key, gives the env var name (SAFE_MIND_API_KEY) and the fallback call to safe_mind_get_api_key, and states its scope (the company of the account behind the key). It stops short of describing failure behavior for an invalid key beyond implying the call is the key-validity check.

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?

Front-loaded with the return payload, then usage, then prerequisites — a sensible ordering. There is mild redundancy: "the company ... that all other tools act on" and the closing sentence "Acts on the company of the account behind the key" restate the same scoping fact.

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?

There is no output schema or annotation coverage, so the description must explain returns and prerequisites — and it does, listing the identity and company fields plus the auth setup. Only the error/behavior on an invalid key is left implicit, which keeps it from being fully 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no schema semantics to add to. The description does document the shape of the returned identity/company fields, which is useful even though parameter semantics are moot 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?

Specific verb+resource: it shows who is connected, naming the exact payload (account name and email, company id, name, employee count). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like safe_mind_list_surveys or safe_mind_list_departments because it describes identity/context retrieval rather than domain listing.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: "check the API key works" and "confirm the company before creating anything." It also names the alternative path for obtaining credentials (safe_mind_get_api_key) and states the scoping rule that it acts on the company behind the key, so an agent knows exactly when this tool applies.

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