get_me

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the returned objects (user and wallet) with field details, and specifies the tool's purpose (confirm authenticated account). It does not cover failure modes or auth details, but for a zero-parameter read-only getter, this is sufficient and useful.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, then provides return structure and usage in a compact form. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by listing returned fields (user, wallet with specific attributes) and offering clear call-order guidance. It fully addresses the agent's likely needs for choosing and invoking this tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail (not needed), but it does clarify the context of the call (authenticated account) which indirectly explains why no parameters are required.

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 clearly states the tool gets the authenticated ZEVO account and wallet, with a specific verb 'Get' and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by focusing on the account owner rather than business data.

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 says 'Call this first to confirm which account the integration is acting on behalf of,' providing clear when-to-use context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions, though the distinction from sibling tools is implicit.

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