assistantmail_get_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Gets' implies a read-only operation and 'authenticated account' signals an auth requirement, but it does not describe error behavior, response format, or side effects beyond the obvious read nature.

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 filler. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple and the description names both the subject and the returned metadata categories. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from clarifying what 'tier metadata' includes, how authentication is handled, and whether the apiKey parameter is required or optional in practice.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention the apiKey parameter at all. The only parameter is left entirely to the schema's type and pattern, so the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 specific verb ('Gets') and a precise resource ('account profile and tier metadata for the authenticated account'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_usage, mailbox operations, or policy tools.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison against alternatives. An agent can infer basic usage from the purpose, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like assistantmail_get_usage.

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