get_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool has no scope restriction and works with any valid key. It doesn't mention rate limits or side effects, but for a read-only status endpoint, this is acceptable. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: first sentence states purpose, second sentence provides usage context and scope. Perfectly front-loaded, no unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers what is returned (API key, owner, scopes) and the recommended use case. It is complete for a simple verification tool, though listing return fields explicitly would enhance completeness.

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?

No parameters in input schema, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Baseline score of 4 applies per guidelines.

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 it returns the API key and its owner, and explicitly says to call it first to verify a key and inspect scopes. This distinguishes it from other 'get_*' siblings like get_competition or get_cheatsheet.

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 states 'Scope: none -- works with any valid key. Call this first to verify a key is valid and to inspect its granted scopes before calling scope-gated endpoints.' This gives clear when-to-use and implies when not to use (after key is verified).

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