get-me

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the operation is non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating what the call returns and signaling that it is an initial discovery call. It does not cover error behavior or authentication failure, but for a simple zero-parameter GET this is adequate.

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 concise sentences, with the most actionable information front-loaded: what the endpoint returns, the HTTP verb, and the recommended invocation order. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple read-only purpose, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the endpoint, the returned data categories, and when to call it. Nothing essential is missing.

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 there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies here; describing return values instead of parameters is appropriate for a parameterless discovery endpoint.

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 precise verb and resource: it returns the signed-in user, PAT-bound team, enabled modules, and token scopes via GET /api/public/me. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-teams or get-team, which operate on team collections rather than the caller's own context.

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 explicitly tells the agent to call this first to learn team id and available modules, providing clear situational guidance. It does not explicitly name exclusions or compare alternatives, but the 'call this first' instruction is strong enough context for an agent to prioritize it correctly.

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