detect_user

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the detection mechanism (git config, system username, environment variables), which implies a read-only local lookup with no server mutation. However, it does not say what happens when detection fails or when no matching Redmine account is found, nor whether anything is cached or written.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the mechanism. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the only source of truth. It explains the inputs to detection but not the outcome shape — whether it returns a user object, a name string, or an error when no match exists — which is the main thing an agent needs before relying on it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly conveys that detection is fully automatic with no caller-supplied input.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Detect the current local user and find their matching Redmine account.' That is far more informative than the bare name, and none of the siblings (issue, timer, project, attachment tools) overlap with this capability. It stops short of an explicit contrast with siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs to know which Redmine account the local machine belongs to. There is no explicit 'call this before X' guidance, no statement about when not to use it, and no alternative tool named.

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