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. 'Get information' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and 'authenticated user' hints that an authenticated session is required, but the description discloses nothing about return shape, caching, rate limits, or error behavior for an unauthenticated caller.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the resource (current authenticated user) is stated up front. Nothing is wasted and nothing needs reordering.

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 surface area is small, but there is no output schema and the description never says what 'information' is returned (id, email, name, scopes). An agent knows how to call it but not what to expect back, leaving a modest but real 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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that the target user is implicit (the caller's own identity) rather than passed as an argument.

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 names a specific verb ('Get information about') and a specific resource ('the current authenticated user'), so the operation is unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the siblings (get_task, list_tasks, get_config_status) operate on entirely different resources, so the distinction is self-evident.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for identity/whoami lookups because the resource is 'the current authenticated user.' There is no explicit statement of when to use it, when not to, or any prerequisite (e.g., a valid session), and no alternative is named.

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