get_current_user_and_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't cover aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the format of returned data, leaving significant gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clearly conveying the core action and resources.

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 complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It states what is retrieved but doesn't provide context on why or how this differs from other tools, making it complete only at a basic level.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter details in the description. The baseline for such cases is 4, as the description appropriately avoids redundant information and focuses on the tool's purpose.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('get') and resources ('current schema and current user'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_table_definition' or 'list_tables_in_current_schema' that also retrieve schema-related information, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention scenarios like needing user context versus schema structure, or how it differs from siblings such as 'execute_query' for data retrieval, leaving the agent without usage context.

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