Get the current Redmine user

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

Despite strong annotations, the description adds meaningful behavior: it documents 401/403 failure modes, Redmine's project-visibility filtering, the safe public profile contract, and the explicit exclusion of self-only fields. It also reassures non-mutation, consistent with readOnlyHint and destructiveHint.

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 dense but well-structured, leading with the action and endpoint, then constraints, privacy behavior, and error cases. The final sentence 'This tool never changes Redmine data' is somewhat redundant with the annotations, but the rest of the text earns its place.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, this description is complete: it covers prerequisites, permissions, accepted parameter values, filtering behavior, privacy exclusions, and possible HTTP errors. No important operational context 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 coverage is 100% for the single include parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that memberships are filtered to projects visible to the requesting user and that no user_id is accepted, which goes beyond the schema's property definition.

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 names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('Redmine user represented by the configured API credentials'), and the exact endpoint ('GET /users/current.json'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling get_user by stating it requires no user_id and returns the authenticated user's profile.

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?

It clearly establishes when to use this tool: for the current authenticated user, as a non-admin read with no user_id. It mentions the only valid include and the visibility filtering, but it does not explicitly state a when-not case or name an alternative to prefer for fetching other users by ID.

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