get-current-user

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context by noting that only a subset of properties is returned by default and that $select is required for additional properties. It also discloses the extension capability. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 paragraph that starts with the core action and then elaborates on default properties and usage. It is informative without being overly verbose, though the final sentence about Entra ID customers is somewhat tangential and could be trimmed. The structure is logical and easy to follow.

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 simple read-only GET operation with no required parameters, the description covers the essential behavior: default property subset, $select usage, and extension support. It does not describe the response format, but since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation. The information is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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 100%, with each parameter well-documented in the schema. The description does not add further meaning to the parameters; it only explains the $select parameter's usage indirectly. Since the schema handles parameter documentation, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool retrieves the properties and relationships of a user object, and the tool name narrows it to the current user. It mentions the ability to get custom properties and extension data, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool get-my-profile, leaving some ambiguity about when one is preferred over the other.

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 explains how to use the $select parameter to request non-default properties and mentions extensions support, but it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-my-profile or other user-related operations. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' direction, so the usage context is only implied.

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