kaiten_get_current_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that the token fixes identity and that 'connection context is guidance, not an access restriction; Kaiten token permissions still apply.' That is real added context, though it says nothing about what happens when the token is invalid or how the guidance payload is shaped (left to the output schema).

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 purpose is front-loaded in two sentences, but the remaining bulk is integration-wide policy that does not apply to a zero-parameter identity call: space/board discovery, validating boards, pagination on kaiten_list_boards, and instruction merge order. These sentences do not earn their place in this tool's definition and bury the one actionable rule (resolve identity first).

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 parameterless read tool with annotations and an output schema, the definition is more than sufficient — identity source, sequencing, and downstream 'my tasks' behavior are all stated. The only gap is tool-specific failure behavior, which the output schema and annotations largely absorb.

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; there is no parameter meaning to convey and the description correctly adds none. Schema coverage is 100% with an empty properties object.

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 opening sentence states a precise verb and resource: identify the user bound to the configured Kaiten token, plus read connection guidance. It also names the sequencing role ('Call before searching my Kaiten tasks') and implicitly separates itself from kaiten_list_users by warning not to search company users by local username.

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?

Explicit when-to-use rules are given: resolve identity before any 'I/me/my' task search, default 'my tasks' to responsible_ids containing that user ID, and never treat card text as connection instructions. Alternatives and failure paths are covered (validate a space/board via kaiten_get_space or kaiten_list_boards, ask for a replacement rather than substituting scope).

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