get_me

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

No annotations are provided, so the description itself must communicate safety and behavior. The verb 'Get' suggests a read-only operation, and 'current authenticated user' implies authentication requirements, but the description doesn't explicitly state side-effect freedom or error cases. It provides acceptable but not extensive behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the function and key output fields without any extraneous content.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately specifies the return content (profile fields) and the tool's scope. There are no nested objects or additional complexity that would require more explanation.

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 accepts zero parameters; the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but since there are no parameters, the baseline 4 applies.

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 the verb 'Get' with a specific resource ('current authenticated user's profile information') and enumerates contained fields (name, email, company, roles). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools dealing with contacts and events.

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 implies the tool should be used when the agent needs the caller's own identity/profile. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but sibling tool names make the differentiation obvious, and the context 'current authenticated user' is clear.

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