Users Get Current User

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this excellently by stating that the tool always returns failure and includes guidance toward a working alternative, preventing false expectations.

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, front-loads the nominal purpose, and immediately adds the critical caveat. There is no wasted verbiage, and the most important behavioral fact is prominent.

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 zero parameters, presence of an output schema, and the explicit failure-plus-alternative behavior, the agent has everything it needs to decide not to call the tool and to use users_search_users instead. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description has no input semantics to add; the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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 states the intended operation — get the profile of the currently authenticated Mitti user — and immediately contrasts it with the actual behavior: the endpoint does not exist and always returns failure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like users_search_users and users_list_users.

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 goes beyond vague context by explicitly telling the agent that this tool always fails and that the alternative, search_users with a known email, should be used instead. This is a direct when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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