swsd_get_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return content (the full field list) and the critical sequencing dependency — that the returned id/email must be passed into follow-up filters. This behavioral context about usage flow is genuinely additive.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence earns its place — usage triggers, follow-up steps, and the alternative. It runs slightly long, but the verbosity is justified because this tool has a subtle usage pattern (must be invoked first for 'my X' queries) that warrants explanation. No wasted sentences.

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?

Despite zero parameters and a simple signature, the tool has a non-obvious invocation pattern and an output schema (which covers return-value details). The description covers everything an agent needs: what it returns (field enumeration), when to call it first, how to chain the output into downstream tools, and the failure mode if skipped. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage trivially 100%), so the description carries no parameter burden. Per rubric, 0-param tools get a baseline of 4. The description correctly communicates that identity is derived from the token's owner rather than from parameters, which is the key semantic an agent needs to understand.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('SWSD user record for the token's owner') and enumerates the returned fields (id, email, name, title, role, department, site, group_ids, assignment status). It clearly distinguishes from siblings — it's the only tool that fetches the current token owner's record, versus swsd_list_users which lists all users.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to call it ('Call this first' when the request mentions 'me', 'my', or 'I') with concrete examples ('my tickets', 'tickets in my group', 'tickets assigned to me'). It names the alternative (swsd_list_my_incidents) that does this in one call, effectively stating when-not-to-use, and explains the consequence of skipping this step ('my X' queries cannot be answered correctly).

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