Get authenticated user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds the auth requirement (personal access token) and the membership scope, which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't describe return format, but with no output schema the burden is somewhat on the description, though for a standard 'get me' endpoint this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words. Slightly more could be added about output shape, but for a zero-parameter read endpoint this is appropriately brief.

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-parameter, read-only endpoint with clear annotations, this description is quite complete. It covers what's returned (authenticated user + project memberships) and the auth requirement. The only minor gap is not describing the return structure, but given there's no output schema and this is a well-understood endpoint type, the description handles the essentials well.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there's nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't mislead or add confusion, so it holds at 4.

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), resource (authenticated user), and adds the scope of 'all project memberships.' This helps differentiate from update_me, which is a sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_projects, though the purpose is fairly distinct.

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 mentions it requires a personal access token, which is a useful requirement note. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like update_me or list_projects, nor does it mention any when-not-to-use scenarios. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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