calcom_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the result is scoped to the authenticated user, but says nothing about return shape, rate limits, or error behavior for an invalid API key.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The resource and scope are stated immediately, which is ideal for a simple profile-read endpoint.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that the response contains the authenticated user's profile fields, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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 is only one parameter (api_key), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description does not add any meaning about how the key is obtained or used, but the baseline is 3 when the schema already covers all parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('authenticated Cal.com user's profile'), making the operation unambiguous. It distinguishes itself implicitly from sibling list tools like calcom_list_bookings by focusing on the current user's own profile, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'authenticated' — the tool retrieves the current user's own profile rather than an arbitrary user. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites beyond what the schema shows.

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