scf_get_current_user

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds context by tying the operation to the authenticated caller and specifying the profile contents returned. This gives an agent useful behavioral understanding beyond the annotation alone, though it does not discuss error cases or exact response structure.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and the key fields returned. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter read-only profile lookup, the description fully covers purpose, return content, and the authentication context. No output schema exists, but the enumerated fields give an agent sufficient expectation of what the tool returns.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description correctly implies the operation requires no input, which is consistent with the empty schema.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the authenticated caller's profile'), and enumerates the returned fields: name, email, organization memberships, and per-org role. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that list organizations or members.

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 identifies the exact use case: retrieving the current authenticated caller's identity and organization context. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but no sibling appears to be an alternative for this operation, so the context is sufficiently clear.

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