get_authenticated_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. However, it merely repeats the name's implication of a read operation without disclosing details about required authentication scopes, rate limits, or the shape of the returned data. This is minimal behavioral transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary verbosity.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate—it states what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the structure of the returned information or authentication requirements, which could be important for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With zero parameters, there are no parameter semantics to explain. The schema covers 100% of parameters (trivially), and the description doesn't need to add parameter details. Consistent with the baseline for 0-param tools.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('info about the authenticated GitHub user'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing specifically on the authenticated user, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 exclusions, prerequisites, or context, leaving the agent without information on appropriate use cases beyond the obvious.

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