Get current user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the operation is a read/identity lookup and adds the useful behavioral context of being a precursor to search_work_packages. However, it does not disclose output shape, possible errors, or whether authentication is required.

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 with no filler: the first states the purpose, the second gives a direct usage instruction. Every phrase adds value.

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 tool, the description is nearly complete: it says what the tool does and when/how to use it. It omits details about the exact response format, but with no output schema that is a minor gap for such a simple identity-lookup tool.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by explaining the intended data flow into search_work_packages, which is more useful than any parameter description would be here.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Identify the OpenProject account this server authenticates as') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on the authenticated identity rather than work packages or projects. It is not a tautology of the tool name.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool ('when a question says 'my' or 'me'') and how to use its result ('then pass assignedToMe to search_work_packages'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable for the common case.

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