kaiten_get_current_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that identity is derived from the configured token rather than a parameter, but says nothing about failure modes with an invalid/expired token. Minor added value over the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key qualifier (configured token) arrives immediately after the verb.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain the returned user fields, and a no-argument tool needs little more than the identity-source statement it provides. It stops just short of noting token/auth requirements or what happens on an invalid token.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly signals that no identifying argument is needed because the token supplies the identity, which is the only semantic point worth making here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('the user associated with the configured Kaiten token'), so it is immediately distinguishable from the sibling kaiten_list_users, which enumerates users rather than resolving the token's own identity.

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 framing 'associated with the configured Kaiten token' implies the usage context (self-introspection, no user id supplied), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over kaiten_list_users or any prerequisites such as needing a valid token. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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