get_user

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the tool gets information; it does not describe what fields are returned, whether authentication is required, or any other runtime behavior. 'Get' implies a read operation, but no meaningful behavioral context is provided.

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 or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an appropriately concise definition.

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 no-parameter getter, the description is enough to invoke the tool, but with no output schema it omits what the returned 'information' actually contains. An agent can call it, but it does not know the shape or scope of the response in advance.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description reinforces the semantic expectation that the user is derived from the current context rather than passed as an argument, which is useful.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current user's information', so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_workspace_members, so it misses the differentiation that would earn a 5.

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 phrase 'current user' implies when to use this tool: whenever the authenticated user's own profile is needed. It gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative might be more appropriate, leaving usage to inference.

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