get_me

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, which is safe, but the description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, or the shape of the returned data. It is minimally adequate but not rich in transparency.

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 redundant words. It states exactly what the tool does without any fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent that this returns account information for the connected account. However, it does not enumerate what information is returned (e.g., username, ID, email), which could be useful but is not strictly necessary for such a basic operation.

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 schema coverage is 100% by definition. The baseline for zero params is 4, and while the description adds no parameter-specific details (none needed), it does not need to compensate for any gaps. The description's mention of 'connected Discord account' provides context that aligns with the tool's purpose.

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 uses a clear verb+resource structure ('Get information about the connected Discord account') that precisely identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_info (which targets a specific user) and get_guild_info. It is unambiguous and concise.

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 context is clear: this tool is used to retrieve information about the bot's own Discord account. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_user_info. For a zero-parameter, self-explanatory tool, the context is sufficient but slightly under-specified in terms of exclusions.

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