get_me

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get information,' implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-mutating behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any potential side effects. This lack of disclosure is a gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (no parameters), the description is adequate for basic understanding, but it does not specify what 'information' includes (e.g., username, ID, avatar). Without an output schema or annotations, the agent may not know what to expect in the response, leaving a moderate completeness 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter details.

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 specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the resource ('information about the connected Discord account'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_info, which likely target other users, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 phrase 'connected Discord account' implies the tool is for the current account, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_user_info or other siblings. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage is only implied.

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