Get Me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the auth requirement, the three accepted token sources (env var, header, OAuth profile), and the automatic token-refresh-and-retry-once behavior, which an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It stops short of describing what the returned profile contains.

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 short sentences, purpose first and auth mechanics second, with zero filler. Every clause adds either scope or an operational precondition.

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 read with no output schema, the definition covers the important operational facts (auth, refresh, retry). It would be complete at 5 if it sketched what identity fields are returned, since no output schema documents the response.

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, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further the description could add on parameter meaning.

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 and resource ('Get information about the current hh.ru user') and anchors it to the concrete endpoint GET /me, so it is unmistakable against siblings like get_resume or auth_status that also return user-adjacent data.

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?

Usage is implied by 'current user' versus other user-specific tools, but the description never states when to call this instead of, for example, auth_status or get_resume. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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