Get Current User

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

The description discloses a non-obvious side effect: calling this tool warms an internal cache used by enrichAuthor, so later create_comment/create_timelog responses include author_name. This goes well beyond the annotations, which only indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core return data is front-loaded, followed by the key usage details and the cache-warming behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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 zero-required-parameter read operation with annotations covering safety, the description fully explains what is returned, how the values are used, and the side-effect behavior. No output schema exists, but the description covers the essential return fields, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the single optional verbosity parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already handles it, so the 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 returns the current user's id, name, and email, with a specific noun and resource. It also differentiates the tool by noting how the returned id feeds into kaiten_get_user_timelogs and kaiten_search_cards.ownerId, which helps distinguish it from sibling user-list tools.

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 gives concrete use cases: obtaining the current user's id for timelogs and ownerId, and warming the cache for author enrichment. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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