Get authenticated Are.na user

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation, does not mention authentication requirements beyond 'the token', and does not describe the structure of the profile or potential error cases. For a tool with no output schema, this lack of detail is a notable gap.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded. 'Profile of the account the token belongs to' immediately conveys the core purpose without any extraneous words. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 with no parameters and no output schema, so the description is the sole source of information about the return value. It does convey that the result is a profile, but it does not detail what fields the profile contains or any additional context about the response format. Given the minimal complexity, the description is somewhat sufficient but leaves room for interpretation regarding the profile structure.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to elaborate on parameter semantics since there are none. No further explanation is 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 identifies what the tool returns: the profile of the account associated with the provided token. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with channels, blocks, or search. The title reinforces the purpose.

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 usage context is implied by the tool's name and description: it is the natural choice for retrieving the authenticated user's profile. However, no explicit guidance is given regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions are stated. The sibling tools are all about different entities, so the choice is fairly obvious, but the description itself does not provide comparative guidance.

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