get_current_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves user information but doesn't specify what type of information (e.g., profile details, permissions), whether it requires authentication, or any rate limits or errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the essential information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying key details like 'currently authenticated' and 'Replit user.'

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on the returned information, authentication requirements, or error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, more context would be helpful for an AI agent to use it effectively, though it's minimally viable.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets expectations by not introducing unnecessary details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since it avoids confusion and aligns with the schema's simplicity.

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: 'Get information about the currently authenticated Replit user.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('currently authenticated Replit user'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_by_id' or 'get_user_by_username,' 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 implies usage context by specifying 'currently authenticated' user, suggesting this tool should be used when you need information about the user who is already logged in. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_user_by_id' or 'get_user_by_username,' nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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