get_me

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully warns that the response's top-level token will automatically refresh the JWT, a meaningful side effect. However, it is silent about required authentication, what happens when user_id is omitted, and whether the tool can fail or behave differently for invalid tokens.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and endpoint, then adds the critical token-refresh behavior. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, so the purpose, endpoint, and token-refresh side effect provide a mostly complete picture. Still, it would be slightly stronger with explicit statements about auth requirements and expected return shape.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains user_id. The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, such as how the default configuration/login value is resolved when user_id is omitted.

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 operation and resource: query the current user's information, and backs it with an explicit endpoint (POST /user/getUserInfoById). This clearly differentiates it from the many sibling get_* tools, which target assets, bills, accounts, or STs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer get_me over auth_status, get_sts, or other user/account-related tools. It also does not mention prerequisites such as login state or token requirements, leaving usage context to be inferred from the name and endpoint.

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