Get authenticated user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: email is never returned, accountId is the identity used for write attribution, timeZone affects worklog timestamps, and a 401 indicates bad credentials rather than a malformed request. This materially helps an agent interpret results and diagnose failures.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and return fields, the second provides Jira-specific identity/timezone context, and the third warns about email absence and error semantics. Nothing is redundant with the annotations or schema, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields: accountId, displayName, active, accountType, timeZone, and locale. It also covers the key caveats (no email, 401 meaning) and the profile parameter behavior is already fully in the schema. For a zero-parameter-required identity endpoint, this is complete.

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 single optional profile parameter is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the schema already explains its meaning and omission behavior. The description does not repeat or enhance that parameter information, which matches the baseline of 3 given high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Verify the configured credentials and return the account they belong to.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from person-resolution by stating 'Email is never returned; resolve people with jira_search_users,' so an agent can tell it apart from search-focused siblings immediately.

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 frames the tool as a credential-verification and identity-inspection call, which gives clear guidance on when to use it: when you need to confirm which authenticated account is active or get the current user's accountId/timeZone. It also names jira_search_users as the alternative for resolving people by email. It does not enumerate exhaustive exclusion cases, but the targeted use case is unmistakable.

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