get_me

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no further behavioral context, but it does not contradict the annotations and the tool's simplicity reduces the need for additional disclosure.

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, short sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple zero-parameter operation and is instantly parsable.

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 the tool's simplicity, the presence of annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently frames the operation. No additional information about return values or conditions is necessary because the output schema covers that aspect.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies, and the description need not document parameters since none exist.

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 'Information about the current authorized user' clearly identifies the resource (current user) and the intent (retrieve info). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_full_user by specifying 'current' and 'authorized', making the tool unambiguous despite the lack of an explicit verb, which is implied by the tool name.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_full_user or get_authorizations. However, the description and tool name clearly imply usage when the current authorized user's information is needed, so the usage is implied rather than stated.

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