Get Current Fitatu User

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and side-effect behavior. The description adds the 'authenticated' qualifier, which clarifies that the tool operates on the user in the current session – a meaningful contextual detail. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if no user is authenticated) or any rate-limit considerations, but given the annotation coverage, a 3 is justified.

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, compact sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the verb and resource immediately, conveying the core action without fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description, combined with the output schema (which is present) and annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), fully covers what an agent needs to know to invoke it correctly. There is no missing information about parameters, return values (handled by output schema), or side effects (handled by annotations).

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, so the schema provides no parameter details. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description adds nothing about parameters because none exist, and no further semantics are 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 states a specific verb ('fetches'), a clear resource ('currently authenticated Fitatu user'), and a result ('profile'). It distinguishes from all sibling tools, which handle meal items, recipes, body measurements, and settings – none of which are about retrieving the current user. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implicitly indicates the tool is for retrieving the current user's profile, which is distinct from other tools like get_user_settings or get_diet_summary. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is so unambiguous that an agent would naturally select it for that action. A slight deduction for not explicitly mentioning exclusions, but the context is clear.

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