ecm_get_user

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly signals a read-only fetch operation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, possible errors, or what response shape to expect.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'current', 'Earth Class Mail', and 'user profile information' all clarify scope and intent.

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 tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the operation and the target resource. It lacks detail about which profile fields are returned, but the simplicity of the tool limits the impact of that gap.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the resource being 'current user profile' even though no parameters need explanation.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Get') and names a clear resource: the current Earth Class Mail user profile. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools focused on inboxes, pieces, and actions.

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 when to use it: whenever the current user's profile information is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so guidance is largely implicit.

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