user-info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the list of returned fields but does not disclose whether the information is about the current user or another user, which is a meaningful behavioral nuance beyond what annotations cover.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core purpose and enumerates the key included fields efficiently.

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?

The presence of an output schema, zero parameters, and read-only annotations covers much of the needed context. The main gap is the missing explicit statement about whose user information is returned, which is particularly relevant given siblings like 'get-users'.

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 places no burden on the description to explain parameter meaning. The description's field list is useful context for what the returned data will contain.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('comprehensive user information') and enumerates the exact fields returned, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling 'get-users' by focusing on a single user's detailed info rather than a list.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get-users' or 'get-workspaces'. The zero-parameter schema implies the current user, but the description never states that this returns the authenticated user's information, leaving an inference gap.

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